PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 2 APRIL 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

1.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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 Legal Services Manager, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 2 APRIL 2002

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

www.iow.gov.uk/council/committees/developmentcontrol/2-4-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 2 APRIL 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 2 APRIL 2002

(a)       TCP/13655E/L                       Open Plan Condition of Pan Estate               NEWPORT 

(b)       TCP/17575D                          Residential Training building

                                                          Bouldnor Forest, Bouldnor                             SHALFLEET

(c)       TCP/20360A/P241/01            OS Parcel 0042,

                                                          off Oakhill Road                                             SEAVIEW

(d)       Article 4(2) Direction              Seaview Conservation Area                          SEAVIEW

PART II

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the meeting held on 18 February 2002 in order to obtain additional information and carry out further negotiations regarding surface water drainage, impact of development on local infrastructure and open space provisions. Also further more specific information has now been received relating to the tenure of the affordable housing element of the scheme. The following report therefore will concentrate on these issues alone with Members being requested to refer to the report prepared for the original meeting (Item 1 Part II, meeting dated 18 February 2002) for any other information relating to this application.

Summary

Summary of the background as follows:

3.2 hectare site on eastern side of Old Road within an area characterised by low density development.

Site subject to past consents - outline consent for 60 detached houses February 1991 followed by reserved matters consent in March 1994 for 60 dwellings. Reserved matters consent commenced by formation of access.

May 2000 further outline consent granted for 79 dwellings subject of Legal Agreement covering provision of 7 units of affordable housing and financial contribution towards the traffic calming in Old Road.

Current application seeks consent for 100 units total in mixture of two, three, four and five bedroomed units to be served by estate roads using existing access point off Old Road.

Site is allocated for residential development as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is subject of local plan policies in respect of design, housing, transport and infrastructure and is also subject of national policies within PPG1 - General Policies and Principles, PPG3 - Housing March 2000 and PPG13 - Transport.

Application subject of extensive representations from East Cowes Town Council, Isle of Wight Society, fifteen individual letters of objection from local residents and one letter received written on behalf of twenty four households in Old Road. Points of representation covered a variety of issues including those for which the application was deferred.

Infrastructure

Members will recall that within the letters of representation some concern was expressed regarding the effect that this development may have on the current infrastructure of East Cowes with particular reference to schools, medical facilities, etc. Indeed, a public question was put

before the Chairman on this issue. A similar question was also put to the Chairman regarding impact of the proposal on road systems in the immediate area and in the wider context in terms of East Cowes.

In simple terms, the questioners were advised as follows:

Site allocated for residential development in Statutory Unitary Development Plan and would have been subject of appropriate consultations with regard to the demand for provision of local services.

Detailed design of traffic calming scheme has been undertaken on behalf of the Council and at this stage no humps are proposed but a pinch point is envisaged with a minimum carriageway width of three metres which is adequate for large vehicles. Local residents are being consulted and final design may be amended once their comments have been studied. (In this regard Members attention is drawn to the £12,000 financial contribution towards traffic calming in Old Road which was achieved under the auspices of the consent of May 2000.)

Highway advice indicated that the A3021 (Whippingham Road) forms part of the primary route network for the Island with traffic flow figures for this road being lower than other roads of a similar nature. There are currently 10,000 daily traffic movements on this road and I am advised that there is significant additional capacity in this primary road to accept any traffic generated by current proposed development. In any event, the major developments in East Cowes are on allocated sites and therefore traffic generation from these sites would form part of calculations in respect of generation of traffic and its general effect on main road systems in the area. I am also advised that the actual carriageway width of the A3021 remains unchanged as a result of recent works.

The above indicates that the various concerns were addressed however, because of the continued concerns I have carried out further consultation with my Development plan colleagues with the result that the following has been received:

"As you know the UDP underwent an extensive and lengthy consultation process which included discussions with colleagues in education services as the future requirements for schools. There was no identified need for further education provision as part of the development of this site, indeed laying close by at Sylvan Avenue (which had been allocated in the Cowes local plan) has been declared surplus to educational requirements and reallocated for residential use.

I am aware Appendix A of the UDP refers to 60 units approved in 1991 but this is only for information as the position at the plan's start date of 1996 and does not form the basis of any calculation for overall housing requirements across the Island. Housing provision through the UDP process which justified on the basis of an average density of development across all the allocated sites and the number actually achieved on each site will vary dependant upon other planning considerations.

For further information the original residential consent at Old Road was approved to enable GKN (then Westlands) to reinvest and upgrade the Falcon site for enhanced employment opportunities. At the same time it also provided for re-provision of open space off Beatrice Avenue. It should also be noted that land at Kingston has been designated for school use as part of the comprehensive housing and employment allocation as set out in the UDP and it is considered that this would more than cater for any additional development arising from increased densities on other sites in the area including Old Road.

In conclusion I am of the view that the increase in housing numbers in Old Road would not have any specific implications for educational provision in this area of East Cowes which has been catered for through the UDP".

The above confirms the statements made at the meeting of 18 February 2002 and therefore it is difficult to see what other steps can be taken on this issue.

Drainage

Surface Water Drainage

Members will recall that the scheme being considered at the meeting on 18 February 2002 indicated on site attenuation in the form of off-line storage tanks to be located either side of the access road in the proximity of the service roads providing access to those units which front Old Road. There were a number of issues which were not entirely clarified at the time of the Planning meeting, issues which it was suggested could be covered by way of condition. Members expressed a satisfaction at this and were of the view that further consideration was required.

Following this decision the applicants were advised to reconsider the matter of surface water attenuation and more importantly ensure that both Southern Water and the Environment Agency were in agreement with the proposals. The concerns related to the overall size of the tanks, their adoption and how the surface water system would function within the site before it discharged into the new sewer to be constructed between the site and the River Medina.

I am now in receipt of a revised proposal which has been put together following a combined meeting with the Environment Agency and Southern Water with the revised system being on-line which means that the surface water flow would go through the attenuation section following the route of the sewer through the site through to its discharge into Old Road and the new surface water sewer. In order to assist Members the applicants Civil Engineers have summarised the proposed system as follows:

"As part of their ongoing strategy to reduce flood risk the Environment Agency required the surface water flow draining from the site to be no more than that produced before the site was developed. This is termed the "greenfield runoff". This becomes the maximum allowable discharge from the site and the flow through the drainage system is controlled at this level by means of "hydrobrake".

As the flow through the system increases it reaches the maximum allowable flow and starts to backup into the storage system. The volume of storage is calculated for a given intensity of storm. At the end of the storm no more rainfall is entering the system but the attenuated or stored volume of water continues to be released into the downstream drainage system.

Throughout the cycle the level of flow into the downstream network never exceeds that which has been deemed to be allowed by the Environment Agency or the adopting Water Authority.

Turning to the means of storage, this is now configurated to be on-line which means that any flow through the system will always go through the attenuation section. This is the preferred configuration of Southern Water who are the adopting Authority.

The previous storage configuration was designed to be an "off-line" system which meant that the flow of water would not be continuous. The storage would only be utilised once the limited flow was reached and water started to backup into the system.

Southern Water's preference for the on-line storage system means that there is a continual flow through the network which should help cleansing.

It is also Southern Water's requirement that the storage pipes be sited in adoptable areas which is now the case".

The above has had an effect in terms of the layout which has been amended in terms of arrangement of dwellings linked to provision of a larger area of single open space area. Reference will be made to this in the following section however, in terms of its impact on the drainage scheme the Environment Agency, as a precaution in order to protect both new homeowners and the residents of existing adjoining properties, requested the incorporation of a shallow depressed area to cater for excess surface water runoff that may occur during the one in a hundred year storm. The purpose of the depressed air area is to hold water in periods of extreme heavy rainfall should the drainage system be unable to cope in that rare situation with in all other times the area being useable as public open space. The depth of the depression at its greatest is 400 mm (1' 4").

Secondly, in respect of the open space area the surface water drainage proposal indicates an L-shaped storage chamber referred to in the schedule as a storage culvert which then discharges into oversized storage pipes, oval in shape, through to a manhole located at the junction of Old Road which is to be constructed integral with the oval pipe but to also contain a hydrobrake to control discharge into the new sewer in Old Road. The hydrobrake to limit discharge to 27.5 litres per second.

I am in receipt of a letter from Southern Water which confirms the following:

An initial proposal would indicate that the design criteria are acceptable to Southern Water in principle in both the surface water and foul flow.

I am also in receipt of a letter from the Environment Agency who confirm that the discharge calculations are acceptable and that they are satisfied that the attenuation volumes and discharge rates are at existing 'green field' rates. I have also received a copy of the discharge consent relating to the discharge into the River Medina.

Members will note from the above that this issue has been the subject of extensive discussions with the relevant agencies involving a fully qualified Civil Engineer. I am still awaiting confirmation that the scheme now submitted is acceptable to the Environment Agency however, I am advised that this is likely to be forthcoming. Therefore, on the basis that both the Environment Agency and Southern Water are satisfied with the proposals both in terms of surface water calculations and location of attenuation systems for adoption, I can do no more than suggest that this proposal is acceptable from a surface water drainage discharge point of view.

Foul Drainage

Members may recall that some concern was expressed again at Chairman's Question Time regarding the capability of the existing foul sewer in Old Road to service this site. At that time the question was answered as follows:

"The limited capacity of the existing combined sewer in Old Road has been fully recognised and resulted in the developer having to lay a new surface water sewer between the site and the river. The new sewer has been designed to accept all surface water discharge from the site in addition to other surface water runoff from part of Old Road and Oaks Close. This will relieve the combined sewer from having to accept surface water drainage and therefore provide additional capacity within that sewer for foul drainage from the site. The part of the overall project has been prepared in consultation and in conjunction with Southern Water Services."

The above was an interpretation of the situation however, in view of the doubts which continue to be expressed regarding this issue I have received confirmation from Southern Water as follows:

"We are fully aware of the sewer problem in the Old Road area of East Cowes. The sewers are intended to accommodate the foul flows from the area but it is known that a significant amount of surface water enters the system causing flooding. With the substantial development now proposed we have an opportunity to relieve the situation. The new surface water sewer is to be constructed to discharge to the River Medina. Part of this scheme also involves connecting surface water drainage from roads etc. that currently go to the foul sewer into the new pipe. In this way, spare capacity is provided in the existing sewer to serve the new development.

The statement to the Committee agrees with our intention for the development. It is anticipated that the reduction in surface water flow will be considerably more than the increase in foul discharge."

As with the surface water situation I consider that the above fully justifies the previous statement with regard to the capacity of the existing sewer in Old Road to accept foul drainage from this development and again I consider I can do no more in terms of assuring confirmation of this fact and therefore recommend approval in terms of foul drainage for this site.

Open Space

Members will recall that provision of open space/play area was an issue causing concern. The scheme indicated fragmented provision of open space in the form of four areas, two being either side of the access junction fronting Old Road with two other areas of open space being within the site. The applicants were requested to reconsider the layout suggesting that the provision of a larger comprehensive area of open space possibly centrally located and overlooked from proposed properties may be a better approach. Such an area could conceivably also be used for general play purposes by children as well as providing visual and public open space amenity for the development as a whole. It was suggested to the applicants that such an area may also incorporate some landscape features in the form of soft landscaping, seating and maybe some hard surfacing etc.

Following this suggestion a revised proposal has now been submitted which indicates one substantial area of open space within the site whilst continuing to indicate the open space areas which front Old Road. The provision of this area of open space has resulted in an adjustment to the layout which does not result in any change in density with the proposal continuing to seek consent for 100 units. In terms of actual areas of open space the developer points out that the new total area of public open spaces is 1,717 square metres breaking down into 900 square metres of open space which front Old Road, with the main area of open space being 817 square metres. Applicant points out that this compares to the consented scheme which only provides 477 square metres of usable public open space.

Second result of negotiations on this issue is a without prejudice offer from the developers of a payment of up to £5,000 for upgrading facilities off-site.

Following Members concerns I believe this proposal to provide one larger usable area of open space which can obviously be laid out in whatever form is considered to be appropriate with particular reference to its use as a play area by children. I appreciate that the proposal does not provide for play equipment which Members will appreciate is a whole new issue covering the ownership, maintenance and liability insurance, and the difficulties this presents. There are a number of matters which lead me to the view that in this case the omission of play equipment is acceptable which are as follows:

The site is being developed at the lower end of the minimum density, i.e. 32 units per hectare, with the result that garden sizes are in most cases relatively generous, providing sufficient room for groups of friends to carry out play activities under the direct supervision of occupiers of the dwellings.

Reference is made to Design Bulletin 32 - Residential Roads and Footpaths Layout Considerations which indicates research suggesting that:

"Children move frequently from one play space to another and journeys to local community facilities are often part of their play patterns, especially when they are unaccompanied by adults. It is common for residential roads to be crossed frequently by children and for children to play on carriage ways and in parking areas regardless of whether special play facilities are provided on an estate or in the area around."

In this case there are three shared surface cul-de-sac elements which are purposely designed to make them safe areas for children to play. Members are advised that studies have been carried out in respect of these types of shared surface roads with that study finding that these types of roads are "highly regarded by residents" and "found to be safe and convenient for pedestrians and drivers". Also, an accident study was carried out which found that "no accidents at all have been reported on the shared surface roads. This study suggests that the use of shared surfaces will not produce any increase in reported injury accidents".

The area being provided is clearly of a usable size being purposely located to ensure it is clearly visible from neighbouring dwellings, in this case on three sides and in an area which is likely to be well lit. In this form these areas can provide a greater incentive to be used for play purposes.

Members will appreciate that this space, because of its size, has a multi-functional use being ideally located in respect of providing an area under which attenuation surface water proposals can be placed for adoption. It also provides an ideal area for the shallow depression to be incorporated catering for excess surface water runoff as previously described, and can also be laid out with both elements of hard and soft landscaping to provide good quality visual amenity which will contribute to the visual environment of the area.

Given the above assessment I am of the view that the open space provision now indicated is entirely satisfactory to provide this development with good quality usable space.

Affordable Housing

Although not an issue on which this application was deferred Members are advised that the matter has been the subject of further negotiation resulting in additional information. Members will recall that the level of the provision in respect of this proposal is to be 11 units for rent, although at the time negotiations were still ongoing.

The cause of these ongoing discussions was that problems were being experienced in achieving a package which stacked up financially without the need to call upon Housing Association grant funding via the Housing Manager.

The latest situation is that an agreement has been reached with a registered social landlord to provide 11 units of accommodation for rent which is the preferred option in terms of ensuring a) deliverability and, b) compliance with the Housing Needs survey which continues to identify accommodation for rent as being the priority requirement. Applicants had suggested a mix of shared ownership and rented accommodation however, I am now satisfied that an agreement has been reached to achieve the full 11 units for rented purposes which clearly complies with Policy H14 in the Unitary Development Plan and the national policies contained in PPG3.

Finally, on this issue Members will recall a question to the Chairman which expressed concerns relating to the location of the social housing on the site expressing the opinion that such housing should be dispersed throughout the development rather than be situated in one place. That question was answered as follows:

"The assessment of the level of impact that housing may have on existing properties would not be based on the tenure of those properties but on the environmental impact which, if considered to be unacceptable, could either be refused or be the subject of negotiations which address those environmental problems.

Loss of value is not a material planning consideration and should not be taken into account. Whilst there may be some social integration advantages in dispersing affordable housing throughout development, the preferred option by the registered social landlord is to retain such affordable housing within one group on the site in the interests of efficient management."

Essentially the situation now remains as that being proposed at the previous meeting and the condition suggested relating to provision in respect of the rented accommodation catering for a local need I consider this issue is now resolved.

Conclusion

From the above Members will note that the issues which were causing concern to Members have been thoroughly assessed with the result that adjustments and amendments have been made to the layout and drainage scheme and additional information has been received concerning other matters. Given the above I consider the proposal should be approved and therefore I recommend accordingly. Such recommendation is subject to a Legal Agreement in respect of a financial contribution of agreed sum towards future maintenance of the open space area and also a financial contribution of £5,000 as offered towards upgrading of play facilities off site.

           1.Recommendation - Approval (revised plans). Subject to Section 106 Agreement in respect of a financial contribution of agreed sum towards future maintenance of open space areas as outlined green on the approved plan, and a financial     contribution of £5,000 towards upgrading of existing off-site play areas.

Conditions/Reasons:

           2.Recommendation -       That a letter be sent to the applicants advising that consideration should be given to the possibility of slow worms being present along the perimeter of the site and further advising that any specimens collected should be removed to a suitable site nearby with any such removal being subject to consultation with the Council's Ecology Officer and English Nature.

Plan

Site and Location

Application relates to area of land of approximately 3 hectares forming part of Three Gates Farm holding, totalling approximately 160 hectares. The majority of farm holding lies on north side of the A3054 Yarmouth road east of Shalfleet.

Site is accessed over concrete road between the Yarmouth road and farm buildings where road to application site continues as unmade track. Boundaries of field are defined by hedgerows and trees with areas of copse adjacent north eastern boundary, in southern corner of site and on opposite side of track serving application site.

Site is laid to grass with gradual fall in north easterly direction with maximum fall of approximately 4 metres from one side of site to the other.

Relevant History

None.

Details of Application

Original submission sought planning permission for construction of twenty four high-tech hydroganic growing tunnel units, associated office and staff blocks, two cold stores and one dry store, balancing lake, filtration pump station, upgrading of access track and formation of parking area. Balancing lake was shown on submitted plans to be located on south western side of the site, between growing tunnels and track providing access to site.

Concern was expressed that proposal did not take account of trees within site and, in particular, access to the development and formation of parking area would result in loss of area of trees at southern end of site, adjacent south western boundary. In addition, submitted plans did not reflect changes in level across the site.

Following discussions and exchange of correspondence between the Authority and the applicants agent, further plans were received showing revised layout, reducing number of growing tunnels from twenty four to twenty, omitting dry store and relocating filtration pump station and balancing lake from south western to north eastern side of site. One important alteration involved relocation of access to site further to north west along access track and alterations to layout of parking area, avoiding area of trees and existing pond. In addition, submitted plans included sections through site indicating that construction of growing tunnels would involve a cut and fill operation, with the buildings dug in on south western side of site and built up on north eastern side.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal in which applicants agent provides details of existing farm activities, details of the processes involved in the proposed horticultural use and consideration of relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. A copy of this letter is attached to this report as an appendix. He advises that the growing system employed by his clients is an intensive growing technique which uses sterile growing units for the cultivation of fruit and vegetables in a soil-less medium. The process operates regardless of variations in climate and soil fertility and is a minimal user of water, most of which is recycled. The harvesting of crops is carried out throughout the year as the climate controlled system means that there is no seasonality of the output. It is also understood that surface water from the development is directed into the balancing lake and recycled and used in the irrigation of the crops.

Application was also accompanied by report produced by applicants providing more detailed information on the growing technique and marketing strategy. This report explains that the growing tunnels are manufactured from a polycarbonate double layer skin typically erected on a 150mm reinforced concrete base with a central drainage system to accommodate any crop water residue which is then recycled through the system. The fabrication will absorb 86% of natural light and each growing room would be equipped with a sodium lighting system designed to move in order to simulate the suns cycle to prevent plants growing elongated as they strive to reach the light. Information in the report indicates that the lighting system would mainly be used in winter months when light sensors detect a low lux factor in daylight hours.

Applicants have also confirmed that site office, staff amenity block and pump filtration building would be clad to external elevations with horizontal timber boarding stained black under a concrete tile roof. The cold stores would be clad to external elevations and roof with profile metal sheeting coloured green and white respectively.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside provides guidance on land use planning in rural areas. The Guidance Note advises that the guiding principle in the countryside is that development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment. It acknowledges that rural areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the location and design of development is handled sensitively.

The Government recognise that farming continues to make a significant contribution to the economy of rural areas but that increasingly, diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm businesses. Therefore, Local Planning Authorities are advised that they should be supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.

Annex C to the PPG provides advice on development related to agriculture and to farm diversification, including glasshouse development and horticultural operations. Horticulture is included in the definition of agriculture and is dealt with under a heading of Development Related to Agriculture rather than Farm Diversification. The PPG acknowledges that the UK faces intense competition from overseas growers and that it is important that the horticultural industry is not held back by over restrictive approaches to developments which could be sited without detriment to the surrounding area. The Guidance Note also acknowledges that glasshouses can have a significant environmental impact and wherever practicable new ones should be sited adjacent or close to existing ones.

Site is located outside of any settlements defined by the development envelopes on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Areas of copse to north east and south west of site are designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. Relevant policies of the 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.

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies) will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D14 - Light Spillage.

E8 - Employment in the Countryside.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

C15 - Appropriate Agricultural Diversification.

C18 - Agricultural Support Activities.

C19 - Management of Rural Water Resources.

C21 - Glasshouse Development.

TR3 - Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Representations

Calbourne Parish Council raise no objection. However, there were a number of conditions that they would like to see met:

1. Site is close to a brook and all safety measures should be monitored to minimise the risk of pollution.

2. Large and heavy vehicles visiting site should be directed to use the lane from the Hebberdens end, connecting directly with the site.

The Parish Council indicated that there was a conflicting statement in the report accompanying the application as to whether the area to be cultivated is in hectares or acres. They also questioned what nutrients would be used in the cultivation of produce and whether the produce would be sold on the Island or would be exported solely to the mainland. In general, they indicated that they are pleased to see an agricultural diversification that keeps the land in production and provides local employment.

Highway Engineer initially commented that vehicular access does not appear to be included within the application area, although improvements are indicated along a short section leading to

the public bridleway, CB26. He made a number of observations regarding the suitability of access to the site, visibility at junction with main road and traffic generation and requested additional information in this respect.

Following further consideration of this matter and additional information provided by applicants agent in respect of proposal, Highway Engineer submitted additional comments. He considered that the company will clearly need to make up access track to the site from the farmyard for their own use. He advised that this is a private road well away from the maintainable highway and did not consider it necessary to impose a specific condition to cover it. He commented that the existing concrete road from the A3054 to the farmyard is a bridleway, already used by large farm vehicles and with a passing bay part way along its length. Therefore, given the small number of lorry movements expected in connection with the development, he does not believe it is necessary or reasonable to ask for improvements to the access road. However, visibility at the junction with the main road in an easterly direction is very poor and unsatisfactory even for the existing use. He noted that the proposed use would attract twenty six additional employees who are expected to arrive by car and considered it would be reasonable to require a visibility improvement and recommended a condition in this respect. As far as he could ascertain, the land required for this purpose is all part of the highway maintainable land. This work would unfortunately involve the loss of several trees although it is believed the highway safety benefits would be significant. Visibility in a westerly direction is considerably better and with exception of routine hedge-trimming, no further improvements are required.

Highway Rights of Way Officer comments that vehicular access from A3054 to Three Gates Farm is part of public bridleway. Initially no details of volume of traffic generated by development was provided although it was expected to be considerable. Rights of Way Officer indicated that she would wish to comment further when this information was available but expects that segregated provision would be required to ensure the safety of users of the bridleway. Following receipt of additional information in respect of traffic generation, Rights of Way Officer has indicated that she is satisfied with the traffic flow information and measures to be implemented by applicant to ensure safety of users of the bridleway, including displaying warning signs.

Having regard to location of site, adjacent two SINCs, Council's Assistant Ecology Officer has visited the site to ascertain if there are specific features of Nature Conservation interest which need to be taken into account in determining the application. She advises that both SINCs have red squirrels listed on their citations and, in addition, Three Gates West has a population of dormice recorded. She advises that it is important that the works to improve the access track leading to the site do not encroach on the ground either side between October and middle of April when dormice may be hibernating on the ground. She also indicates that the hedgerow on eastern side of track is species rich and qualifies as important under the Hedgerow Regulations. She noted that formation of access was within an area of trees and scrub and should avoid the hedgerow. However, she did question if any trees were to be lost. She recommended that soft landscaping should comprise native species, particularly those which would provide food for red squirrels. The revised plans subsequently received show the revised layout in order to minimise loss of trees.

Environment Agency raises no objection. However, they advise that under terms of Water Resources Act 1991, an Abstraction Licence may be required from the Environment Agency for the filling and maintaining of lakes for irrigation or for any other purpose and that this is dependent on water resource availability and may not be granted. They also provide advice to the applicant.

One letter received from employee at Three Gates Farm who also occupies dwelling adjacent site supporting proposal for reasons which can be summarised as follows:

Proposal would create employment and benefit Island economy which has changed over the years.

Project has connections with Green Movement including Professor David Bellamy and would be good way of promoting one of the most beautiful Islands in the UK.

Many farmers have had to leave the Island due to financial difficulties and if farms do not diversify and attempt to generate alternative sources of income further jobs will be lost.

Ramblers Association welcomed diversification within the agricultural framework of the Isle of Wight but comment that nature of this diversification must be judged against the existing conditions within each area of the countryside. They comment that the area to north of Yarmouth Road is a particularly quiet and undeveloped part of the Island and particular care needs to be exercised in considering development in order to maintain the balance between needs and effect. In particular, they express the following concerns:

Potential conflict between lorries/cars attending site and users of bridleway. Track is narrow and adequate passing places with refuges for rights of way users should be provided.

Any retailing from site could increase traffic movements further.

Submission makes reference to attempts to negotiate with Power companies to establish supplies of renewable energy. Concern is expressed at possibility of future establishment of a wind farm or power unit to burn waste pellets which would be inappropriate in this location.

Any future security fences would be out of keeping with surrounding.

Future expansion resulting in loss of surrounding woodland should be avoided.

Submission lacks information regarding potential loss of trees.

Line of right of way should remain open during development.

Following notification of revised scheme, Ramblers' Association commented that revised plans make no material changes that would affect their comments and request that their earlier comments are taken into account.

Letter received from Planning Consultant acting on behalf of owner of property adjacent site, and duplicate letter received from prospective purchaser, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Proposal contrary to Policy C15 of the Unitary Development Plan on grounds that insufficient evidence has been submitted to explain how proposed diversification will integrate with existing activities at farm and avoid potential conflict with client's dwelling which adjoins site.

Proposed operations more characteristic of industrial rather than an agricultural use and would result in significant intensification of buildings and activities to detriment of adjacent dwelling and surrounding countryside.

24-hour nature of business with noise, fumes, light pollution and overlooking would have adverse effect on neighbouring property contrary to Policies G9 and G10 of the Unitary Development Plan. (Policy G9 was omitted prior to adoption of plan).

Proposal contrary to Policy TR7 of Unitary Development Plan and would create significant increase in traffic. Junction with main road is an accident black spot with very poor visibility.

Use of bridleway will create conflict with walkers and horse riders.

Environmental impacts of proposed access improvements have not been addressed in accordance with the requirements of Policy TR8 and are likely to result in loss or damage to existing mature trees and hedgerows.

Proposal contrary to Policy C11 of Unitary Development Plan as it will have adverse effect on adjoining SINC.

Reflective qualities of proposed growing tunnels are akin to glasshouse development and should be accompanied by visual impact assessment in accordance with Policy C21 of the Unitary Development Plan, particularly having regard to proximity of objector's property and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to north.

Light spillage - proposal contrary to criteria of Policy D14 of Unitary Development Plan as insufficient consideration has been given to impact on objector's property. The growing tunnels will be lit at night and, together with external lighting, will give rise to light pollution of objector's property and surrounding countryside.

Following notification of revised scheme, further letter was received from Planning Consultant who represented the original owner of adjacent residential property advising that he is now acting for the new owner of that property. He effectively reiterated the original opposition to the proposal, providing additional information to support each ground for objection. He comments that proposal still represents a significant intrusion into the countryside despite the reduction in the number of growing tunnel units. He questions whether this is an appropriate location for development of this nature which may have an urbanising effect, located in a sensitive area and close to his clients property. Although horticultural by definition, he does not consider that proposal is reliant on a rural location. Reference is made to Unitary Development Plan and that it is acknowledged in this document that commercial glasshouse developments can have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of their size and appearance. He considers that insufficient information has been made available to assess the noise impact on his clients property. This would include noise generated by employees vehicles and delivery vehicles. In this respect, he considers that development would result in a significant increase in vehicle movements to and from the site contrary to advice contained in PPG13 - Transport. Concern is expressed regarding the future success of the horticultural operation and possible alternative uses, for example a garden centre, and that establishment of horticultural business may make it difficult to resist expansion into adjacent fields.

Evaluation

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle and whether development would have adverse effect on character of area and amenities of nearby residential properties. In assessing impact of the development it is necessary to have regard to factors including traffic generation, disturbance to neighbouring properties from plant and lighting, loss of natural features and the effect of the proposal on the adjoining SINCs. Other material considerations include the potential employment opportunities that are likely to be created by the development and the benefits to the existing farm activities.

In accordance with Policy G5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, outside the defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is an appropriate scale and falls within one or more of the categories of development detailed in the policy. These categories include development connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities. Policy also sets out circumstances where such development will not be acceptable and relates generally to the likely impact of the development. In this instance, the proposal involves horticultural operations which is included in the definition of agricultural for planning purposes. In addition, in Annex C to Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, advice on glasshouse construction and horticulture is dealt with under a heading of Development Related to Agriculture and not within the section relating to Farm Diversification. Therefore, I am satisfied that, in this instance, the development proposal is connected with agriculture and is appropriate for a rural location.

Growing tunnels would have substantial footprint with area of approximately 10,130 square metres. The tunnels would be constructed in four blocks, linked by access corridors, arranged in an L-shape and would have height of approximately 4 metres. Tunnels would be dug into slope on south west side of site by maximum of approximately 1.6 metres and built up by maximum of 1.8 metres on north east side of site, resulting in maximum overall height of approximately 5.4 metres above ground level. Cold stores, office and staff buildings would project slightly above growing tunnels having height of approximately 5 metres.

Trees on boundaries of site and within adjacent woodlands have height in excess of 10 metres providing high degree of screening to site, particularly when viewed from a distance. Boundary of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty referred to by objector is located approximately 360 metres to north of application site and, having regard to screening provided by trees surrounding site, I consider that development is unlikely to have significant impact on the designated area. Development is likely to have greatest impact when viewed from adjacent bridleway to east or from track running along south west boundary of site and leading to adjacent residential property, unrelated to farm holding, located to north west of site. Excavations on south west side of site will result in reduction in height of growing tunnels in relation to access track along south west boundary of site. Impact of the development when viewed from the adjacent access tracks could be reduced further by additional landscaping, comprising appropriate native species, in the area between the growing tunnels and these tracks.

Although of significant scale, the nature of the buildings, their location within an area of natural landscape features and their contribution to the local economy lead me to conclude that the proposal is generally in accordance with UDP policies S4, S5 and G5.

Applicants and their agents have provided additional information in respect of proposal, including figures for predicted number of vehicles attending site. These were initially calculated for the scheme involving twenty four growing tunnels and will therefore be lower in view of the revision of the scheme to involve twenty growing tunnels. Information provided indicates that collections and deliveries would be carried out by 20-ft container lorries, flat-bed lorries and 1-ton vans and that traffic flows would vary from month to month with maximum number of vehicles attending site totalling twenty six for month of September. In addition, it is anticipated that development would create employment for twenty people, one for each growing tunnel, to assist in the planting, maintenance and harvesting of the crops along with one manager and one administrative employee. I am advised by the applicants that it is company policy to encourage staff to use public transport where possible or car share as part of the overall environmental strategy.

I consider that issues relevant in determining the acceptability of the proposal in terms of traffic generation relate to the standard and width of the access, visibility at the junction with the main road and the potential conflict between vehicles attending the site and users of the bridleway. Access to site is for most part provided over concrete road which serves the existing dairy farm and already carries heavy vehicles attending the site in connection with the dairy enterprise, including vehicles delivering animal feed and milk tankers. Access road has passing bay approximately halfway along its length and also forms part of designated bridleway. Remainder of access road, between existing concrete road and site, would be made up to the same standard. Highway Engineer considers that visibility at junction of access road and main road could be improved in easterly direction, involving removal of some trees adjacent the roadside on highway maintainable land, resulting in significant highway safety benefits. Landscaping could be carried out to rear of visibility splay to replace those trees to be removed.

Whilst concern has been expressed that vehicles may cause conflict with other users of the bridleway, it should be noted that, as previously mentioned, road is already used by large vehicles in connection with the existing farm operations and applicants agent indicates that this has not caused any conflict in the past. Furthermore, he advises that his clients would display warning signs on access road alerting users of the bridleway to its use by large farm and delivery vehicles. In general, access road is considered to be of adequate standard to serve the existing farm and proposed horticultural business.

The growing process involved in the proposed horticultural operations requires the provision of twelve hours of light per day. Therefore, during times of year when daylight hours are shorter, artificial light is required within the growing tunnels. However, applicants agent advises that use of lighting would be kept to minimum for cost reasons. Furthermore, information provided by the applicants indicates that no artificial lighting is likely to be required during the months of April to August inclusive and maximum use of lighting would amount to two hours each morning and two hours each evening from November to February inclusive. Applicants are investigating the use of blinds in the growing rooms which would automatically deploy as light levels drop in anticipation of the switching on of the artificial lighting. In addition, applicants point out that lighting would shine downwards onto the crop and any light spillage would be from reflected light rather than direct light. In any event, having regard to limited periods when lighting would be in operation and screening provided by surrounding trees, I do not consider that lighting would have excessive or adverse impact on rural character of the area or amenities of adjoining residential property.

It is anticipated that the normal working hours at the growing facility would be from 08:00 hours to 18:00 hours and vehicle movements would coincide with the ferry times to the mainland. Furthermore, applicants agent indicates that it is intended that produce should be exported from the Island using vehicles which would otherwise return to the mainland empty and that this would provide an economic and sustainable way of transporting the produce. Subject to appropriate restrictions on delivery/collection times, I am satisfied that any disturbance to occupants of property adjacent the site would be minimised. Applicants agent suggests that operation of plant at the site would generate minimal noise emissions and no more than currently emanate from the existing farm arising from milking operations associated with the dairy enterprise. Applicants have provided details of noise emission levels from the plant to be operated at the site and the Environmental Health Officer has been consulted in this respect. Following a visit to the site during the hours of darkness in order to measure background noise levels when they are likely to be at their lowest, he has recommended conditions, should application be approved, which limit noise levels emitted from the plant in order to protect the amenities of the adjoining residential property.

Original scheme as detailed on plans which accompanied the submission paid little regard for trees and natural features within the site, particularly an area of trees adjacent the access road where formation of access and parking area would have resulted in loss of trees and existing ponds in this area. Scheme was subsequently revised, and further plans submitted showing reduction in number of growing tunnels, repositioning of access and altering overall layout of development in order to minimise loss of trees. In particular, submitted plans show retention of area of trees adjacent access track. With exception of removal of small section of hedgerow to form access, development would not necessitate removal of any trees around boundaries of site and would involve loss of very few trees within the field itself.

I do not consider that development would have direct impact on ecologically sensitive areas adjacent site and, in particular, retention of trees on boundaries of site should ensure that development does not have adverse impact on habitat of red squirrels in the locality. Furthermore, subject to the necessary access road improvements being carried out at an appropriate time of year, in accordance with the advice of the Assistant Ecology Officer, I am satisfied that development will not have adverse effect on dormouse population in this locality. It is understood that the growing process does not use any pesticides and all water is discharged to the balancing pond and recycled through a sealed system and used in the irrigation of the plants. Therefore, I am satisfied that development is unlikely to have any indirect impact on the adjacent SINCs.

Proposed development would have economic benefits both in terms of providing support activities to the existing dairy enterprise on the farm holding and in generating additional employment. In this instance, I am satisfied that any adverse effect on the rural character of the area in general and amenities of the adjoining residential property can be mitigated, for example by appropriate landscape treatment.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that proposal represents acceptable form of development within the countryside without detriment to the character and environment of the locality. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposal will not have excessive or adverse impact on amenities of nearby residential property and that any impact can be further reduced by appropriate landscaping and restrictions on operating hours of lighting and deliveries/collections at the site.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Appendix to TCP/3752D/P1007/01 Plan

Members will recall that an application seeking outline consent for extension to workshop, two additional industrial units together with formation of slipway and jetty and pair of semi-detached dwellings with access served off Ranalagh Drive was considered at the meeting held on 29 January 2002 when Members resolved to grant consent subject to no further comments being received by 1 February 2002.

Given that further written representations were received within the extended consultation period, a further report was prepared for the subsequent meeting held on 18 February 2002. At this meeting Members reaffirmed decision to grant a conditional outline planning consent taken at earlier meeting.

Prior to issue of decision notice, negotiations have continued with owner of site and agent in respect of preparation of Planning Brief and agent has requested that further revised scheme be considered by Members and amended decision notice issued accordingly. Previous report to Members is repeated below with appropriate amendments.

Site and Location

Application relates to industrial boat building premises located at northern end of Ashlake Copse Road with the western boundary of site fronting Wootton Creek. Site itself comprises several industrial buildings and landing stages, slipway open land which includes reclaimed land. Access to site is currently gained from Ashlake Copse Road and access from Fishbourne Lane comprises narrow unmade track. There is a purpose built access road from Ranalagh Drive which is currently only used for residential purposes.

Relevant History

In terms of industrial site, detailed application submitted in 1989 for consent to construct new access road linking site with Fishbourne Lane and outline proposal to redevelop site on adjoining land with 25,000 square feet of marine related industrial floor space and 66 dwellings and construction of new link road and marshalling area including new roundabout on agricultural land to east of Fishbourne Lane linking car ferry terminal with Eleanors Grove. Both these applications were refused consent.

Following negotiations and establishment of small Working Party of former Borough Members, planning brief was agreed in early 1990. Following further negotiations, revised application was submitted for 20,000 square feet new/refurbished marine and light industrial floor space, twelve dwellings and new access road was to run through part of curtilage of Burnside. Proposal was considered in July 1990 when it was decided to grant conditional approval subject to applicants entering into agreement with Council in respect of timing of construction of new road and various other matters. Legal agreement not concluded and therefore formal decision notice was not issued and applications were eventually treated as being withdrawn.

Subsequent application for retention of refurbished industrial building together with extensions to provide toilets chandlery, club/restaurant, controller's office, pontoon, moorings (150 craft), proposed parking and associated car parking was approved in October 1993. Further consent granted in 1996 for demolition and erection of single storey extension to enlarge boat building workshops and offices.

In November 1995 three applications were considered on this site and adjoining land. Firstly, application seeking detached double garage at Burnside, secondly detailed application seeking consent for construction of new 5.5 metre carriageway linking Fishbourne Quay with The Poplars/Fishbourne Lane through curtilage of Burnside. Third application considered was outline submission for boat building shed on former Ranalagh Works site.

At meeting held on 28 November 1995 Members decided to grant conditional outline planning permission for new shipbuilding shed, but deferred consideration of proposed access road in order to allow further negotiations to take place in respect of possible realignment of road, noise attenuation measures and design of new junction at The Poplars/Fishbourne Lane. It was further deferred at subsequent meeting held on 19 December 1995.

Subsequently, Members resolved to grant conditional planning consent for linking roadway at their meeting held on 16 January 1996. Conditions attached to consent restricted use of road to Aluminium Shipbuilders Limited, Wootton Fisheries, bona fide visitors to premises and by occupants of residential properties with no other means of vehicular access. Further conditions required existing vehicular access from site to Ashlake Copse Road to be permanently stopped-up and effectively closed to vehicular traffic to Fishbourne Quay and the construction of a 2 metre high brick wall along boundary with neighbouring properties (nos. 2 and 4 The Poplars). Other conditions related to highway visibility matters and landscaping.

In July 1997 application was submitted seeking removal of condition 2 relating to usage of road and variation of condition no. 4 which required construction of boundary walling (both conditions attached to January 1996 approval for link road). Report to Members suggested that restrictive condition attached to usage of road would not comply with requirements of Circular 11/95 concerning use of conditions in planning permission and it was recommended that this particular condition be deleted. With regards to condition no. 4, requirements of this particular condition required full details to be submitted in respect of construction of 2 metre high brick wall along boundary with neighbouring properties, ie nos. 2 and 4 The Poplars. Details were submitted in 1996 and approved by letter following consultation with affected occupiers. Condition also required such works to be carried out prior to road being brought into operational use. Members may be aware that there has been considerable amount of investigation, meetings and correspondence with interested parties concerning this particular issue. Matter was subject of report to Planning Committee in August 1996 and considered as urgent item in confidential session. Members had before them a comprehensive report with supporting information and they expressed concern about alleged breaches of planning control and alleged problems experienced by local residents. Members resolved to take no further action at this stage, but closely monitor situation and to seek evidence to support alleged breach of aforementioned condition which if obtained, could be used in connection with enforcement action.

In view of the Local Planning Authority being unable to issue a split decision, application was refused on grounds that part of application seeking to amend condition 4 was considered unreasonable as the completion and operational use of the access road would be likely to have detrimental effect on residential occupants in the absence of a properly designed boundary wall due to increased noise and disturbance.

Details of Application

Originally submitted application sought outline consent for workshop extension, new industrial unit, formation of slipway and jetty and four dwellings with site accessed off Ashlake Copse Road. Following negotiations and response of statutory consultees, application has now been revised with the deletion of the three detached dwellings originally intended to be located on foreshore with access to site off Ranalagh Drive. Other aspects of proposal include workshop extensions, two new industrial units and pair of semi-detached houses, together with slipway and jetty facilities forming main part of current submission.

Application considered at meeting held on 29 January 2002 was in outline form with access and siting to be considered at this stage. Plans indicated extension totalling some 145 square metres, two new detached industrial units in 185 and 135 square metres respectively, located centrally within site.

Plans also indicated construction of slipway and piles together with fixed piled jetty.

Pair of semi-detached houses were shown to be sited at the eastern end of site close to site entrance adjacent to existing residential development.

Site is shown to be accessed from Ranalagh Drive and formal notice has been served on owner.

Agent has now suggested that following consideration of draft conditions Members agreed to attach to previous outline consent, his client now wishes to remove industrial content from application (including extension to existing workshop). Such an amendment will simplify conditions attached to consent and amendment is justified on grounds that pair of semi-detached houses purely relate to urgent work needed to repair the sea wall in providing funds for that work. In addition, such an amendment will facilitate the emerging Planning Brief being formulated for this site.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Majority of industrial site and part of land fronting foreshore is located within established development envelope boundary as shown on Unitary Development Plan. Land fronting Creek lies outside established boundary.

Majority of Wootton Creek is European Designated Site for Nature Conservation, also Ramsar and SSSI (Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek). Works involving new slipway and jetty lie outside specially designated areas.

In terms of UDP policies, the following policies are considered relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes in Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

D1 - Standards of Design.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

H5 - Infill Development.

E1 - Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses.

E3 - Resist Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses.

E5 - Resist Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses.

E7 - Employment Sites with Deep Water Frontage.

C3 - Development of Coast Outside of Development Envelopes.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Representations

In terms of original submission, the following comments were received.

English Nature advised that proposed development is located on Wootton Creek which is part of statutory site for nature conservation. Location of proposal is adjacent to rather than within other statutory sites. In respect of slipway and jetty which involves small amount of estuary infill, work is within estuary but outside boundary of statutory site. New structures occur within area occupied by large pontoon which will be removed. English Nature advises that this element of scheme will not have detrimental effect on nature conservation interests of estuary. With regards extension to workshop, new industrial unit and pair of semi-detached dwellings, this element of proposal will not have any detrimental impact on nature conservation interests of estuary provided they do not result in increased requirement for coast defence. In respect of two detached dwellings on north of any infilled lagoon, this occurs within sensitive area of statutory sites including salt marsh and shingle spit. Areas used by wintering birds are European feature for feeding and roosting, infilling of lagoon was unauthorised and will have resulted in loss of wildlife habitat and is partially stabilised shingle spit, therefore affecting natural estuary processes. Use of land close to estuary for new dwellings would appear to be inappropriate for number of reasons given sensitive location of area, most appropriate land use would involve returning it to lagoon and salt marsh area which would be of value to wildlife and also buffer current sensitive wildlife area from adjacent industrial area. Element of scheme may have detrimental effect and in view of this English Nature advises that application is likely to have significant effect on European site and will require appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations. Furthermore, English Nature object to the application since the location of dwelling and uncertain land use close to sensitive area of SSSI could have detrimental impact.

Environment Agency raise objection to original submission on grounds that proposal would result in loss of intertidal habitats and may result in disturbance of wintering birds (a European feature) that feed and roost in the European site and SSSI. Furthermore, the design of the slipway would entail the loss of inter-tidal foreshore which is of great importance to estuarine fish, especially juveniles.

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds that the existing access is very poor in terms of width, forward visibility, construction and drainage.

AONB Officer states that although application site is just outside AONB, it is clearly visible from opposite bank of estuary which is within AONB and is also visible from bank on same side of estuary which is within designation. He is concerned that scale of proposal which it is felt would be detrimental to views of site, although accepting that industrial use is not particularly attractive. However, this is seen is overdevelopment of site. Main concern is introduction of housing onto site which would seem to be incongruous and given nature of site rather risky. It is not considered that housing on this site is appropriate and formal objection to this aspect of application is raised. Not necessarily opposed to enlargement of workshop subject to eventual design nor addition of slipway. These are features of working landscape in this type of location and do not necessarily detract from view. There are considerations under Policy C2 which could militate in favour of development. It would be preferable in here view if enlargement of premises could be contained within one well designed building rather than introducing other units and view is that there is merit in pursuing some form of application for this site, but more work needs to be done from landscape point of view to limit impact.

Ashlake Copse Road Residents Association object to application on following grounds:

Inadequacy of Ashlake Copse Road to accommodate movement with highway continuing to deteriorate and commercial traffic has increased in volume and size. Existing use has further damaged road and overhanging trees, trailered lorries carrying panels having to be fork lifted around two right angled corners by track diggers, further damaging road and stopping traffic. Consider access to site should be gained via Ranalagh Drive as previously intended.

Wootton Creek Fairway Association state that plans submitted are absent of exact details as to length of proposed structures and this is important point given potential problem relating to encroachment on navigation channel and impedence of vessels moving in and out of Creek. They are of opinion that structures appear to extend into Creek beyond 7.5 metre line of demarcation and lead to potential navigation problems.

Queen's Harbour master has been consulted and any reply received will be reported at meeting.

Eight letters have been received specifically objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Adequacy of access (Ashlake Copse Road).

Comment was also made concerning potential for further increased wear and tear given existing unacceptably state and repair of carriageway. It is characterised by inadequate width, visibility and tight corners. Traffic movement also results in tree damage and potential adverse impact on wildlife.

Pollution potential of site given previous users.

Setting of precedent for further development both within application site and plots served off Ashlake Copse Road.

Writers refer to fact that consent has been granted for alternative use through Ranalagh Drive.

Six letters have been received, with writers expressing no objection to proposal, but raising general concerns relating to:

Consideration be given to existing state of Ashlake Copse Road.

Objection in principle to alternative access being provided with relevant conditions to consent being enforced.

Infilling of lagoon, appropriateness of residential development on such land.

To soundproof new industrial units together with restrictions on type and times of operation to protect residential occupiers.

Appropriate siting of dwellings to minimise impact from industrial user.

Suggestion that new industrial structures should be single storey given their siting adjacent SSSI.

Appropriate scale in respect of proposed extensions would be no larger than existing structure.

Appropriate extensions to existing seawall.

Inaccuracy in terms of SSSI demarcation.

Ground conditions require appropriate survey and requirement to ensure that there are no increased depth of water at seawall or along jetty.

The following comments were received in respect of revised proposal.

English Nature now advise that development will not have significant effect on European sites and will not require appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The objection in relation to the SSSI is also withdrawn. They do advise that construction works in the inter-tidal area should take place outside the wintering bird season to avoid disturbance to birds.

Environment Agency has discussed application with applicant and following submission of revised proposal, Agency is now in position to withdraw its objection subject to appropriate conditions being attached to consent. They relate primarily to control of foul and surface water run-off from site.

Environmental Health Officer comments that the proposed juxtaposition of general industrial with residential use and B2 use involved would potentially make land around existing and planned uses suitable for only similar uses unless suitable conditions could be imposed to protect sensitive existing premises or proposed development. Potential for conflict between such uses and sensitive development is widely recognised and detailed in planning guidance within PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms), PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control) and PPG24 (Planning and Noise). He advises that current proposals constitute a significant challenge to draft conditions which protect amenity of proposed residential uses whilst also permitting realistic economic development of the industrial uses. As to whether or not suitable practical conditions could be imposed, he would require additional information in form of comprehensive Noise Assessment Report carried out by a competent person. Upon receipt of such survey, he would then be in position to offer detailed recommendation. In absence of this information as to practicality of any conditions, their department would have no option other than to recommend refusal. This is because they are, on evidence available, unable to assess whether the juxtaposition of uses is capable of being controlled through imposition of conditions. This would also avoid the situation where outline planning approval may be granted and subsequent Acoustic Report concludes that noise problems cannot be resolved by condition. It is concluded that Acoustic Survey may reveal that proposed development in untenable.

Four letters were received within intervening period allowed for consultation prior to 1 February 2002 raising objection and concern which can be summarised as follows:

Further development of shipyard will result in more cars and heavy traffic causing wear and tear on highway system.

Use of Ranalagh Drive/Fishbourne Lane will cause increased congestion in locality, particularly at peak times, increase erosion of coastline and Creek itself.

Comments relating to building of slipway and pontoon and matters relating to navigational rights of way.

Reference is made to part of foreshore that has been reclaimed and that any planning consent should not be granted until area is restored to previous state.

Requirement for new industrial buildings and extensions to be soundproofed, together with need for care to be taken in respect of design of proposals in seeking to reduce visual impact.

Inappropriate scale of works in respect of seawall which will change overall nature of riverside.

Need for a ground condition survey with need also for a hydrological investigation.

Difference in surface levels between adopted road and private road which leads to excessive noise.

No provision has been made for pedestrian activity in locality and concern is expressed over potential conflict of commercial traffic and risk to pedestrians, particularly due to road layout and poor visibility.

Requirement to finally top surface part of roadway involved.

Evaluation

In general terms, planning background is that site represents long established industrial user which is served by extremely poor access along Ashlake Copse Road and where there have been a number of attempts to resolve various problems, particularly in terms of access.

Principle of redeveloping site plus enabling residential development has been accepted in principle by former Borough Planning Committee with site served off new access which ran through part of curtilage of Burnside. As outlined in Relevant History section, application was approved in principle, but due to legal agreement not being concluded, permission was not issued. Subsequent consent for access road issued in 1996 supported principle of access to water front industrial site from Fishbourne Lane subject to appropriate highway and junction design conditions and noise attenuation measures. Such situation meets objective in encouraging industrial development on site with water frontage which provides long-term employment potential, whilst also addressing advantages or planning gain in constructing new link road to Fishbourne Lane and in removing traffic load from Ashlake Copse Road.

As previously reported to former Borough Planning Committee, it is not considered practical to support any proposal which involves upgrading and maintenance of Ashlake Copse Road for a variety of reasons, including apparent difficulty in improving right angled bend close to junction with Fishbourne Lane, visibility in southerly direction at that junction which is relatively short distance from controlled junction with Eleanors Grove. Road also suffers from inadequate width and construction and it should also be taken into account the type of improvements required to bring it up to standard capable of dealing with modern heavy lorries may result in pressure for further development in immediate vicinity.

Impact of proposed link road on occupants of adjacent nearby residential properties and effect on vehicular traffic flow at this point along Fishbourne Lane were considered when application for access road was determined in 1996. Conditions attached to this consent restricted use of the road, required stopping-up of Ashlake Copse Road and construction of 2 metre high brick wall along boundaries of nos. 2 and 4 The Poplars. As explained in Relevant History section, any condition seeking to restrict use of road is not considered reasonable in planning terms.

Members will be aware that currently Ranalagh Drive does not provide access through to Fishbourne Quay and day to day operations at yard continue to be serviced by Ashlake Copse Road. Report to Members in January 1998 following application seeking to vary conditions made clear that it was not considered reasonable to relax or amend condition relating to requirement to provide 2 metre high brick wall along residential property boundaries.

It should also be noted visibility required by 1996 approval has been obstructed by growth of conifer hedge. Whilst report to Members in March 2000 recommended to take no action on this matter, decision was based on use of road for residential purposes only. Any commercial use of road will require the reinstatement of the appropriate visibility splay.

Notwithstanding the matter of access to the site, other planning considerations relate to issues concerning nature conservation and UDP policy.

With regards to nature conservation interest, both statutory consultees, ie English Nature and Environment Agency, have lifted their objections in respect of revised scheme as they consider there will be no significant impact on European Sites.

UDP policy seeks generally to protect existing employment sites (E3) and in particular employment sites which have deep water frontages (E7). Majority of site lies within development envelope and UDP policy which seeks to locate development within such boundaries.

Consideration needs to be given to relative positions of proposed pair of dwellings and industrial use of site. Given likely previous uses and storage that occurred on site, it is considered reasonable to impose condition requiring pre-development contamination survey and requirement for remedial works identified as necessary. Whilst comments of Environmental Health Officer are appreciated in respect of potential noise disturbance again it is felt given established nature of industrial use on this site and existing proximity of residential property, introduction of the further units at eastern end of site are sufficient distance from existing buildings to ensure as far as is reasonably possible that industrial use will not impact to an unacceptable level on residential occupiers.

Given policy which seeks to retain industrial use on this site, it would seem unreasonable to resist principle of such developments on site which is important employment generator and which works, according to applicant, are necessary to create viable and sustainable marine facility including slipway, jetty and quay, these works will enable operator to continue for foreseeable future on Island. Company are world leaders in production of welded aluminum hovercraft hull fabrications with potential orders until 2004. Further potential orders for next generation cross-Solent craft will be likely to result in hulls being fabricated at Fishbourne and hence the requirement to extend workshops for these 30 metre craft.

Arguably there will be a loss of industrial land on this site for residential purposes, but it can clearly be seen that the site is somewhat under-utilised and appears to require some capital investment to improve operations. The profits on the sale of the residential land will allow a functional smaller site to flourish. Without this financial input, the site would remain larger, but at least continue as now, at worse be non-functional and close.

As mentioned in the earlier part of this report, agent has requested that revised application be considered by Members which seeks consent purely for construction of pair of semi-detached houses and formation of slipway and jetty. The basis for this request is short-term need for housing to fund urgent work needed to repair seawall and to simplify issue of planning consent with deletion of conditions relating to industrial development. Agent also states that such scheme will not compromise development of Planning Brief for this site which is currently undergoing public consultation prior to further report being prepared for Executive Committee.

In land use terms current amendment does not allow opportunity for imposition of conditions which would bring industrial use of site under more control which would have additional benefit for both existing and proposed residential occupiers. Nevertheless, agent's contention that urgent sea wall repair work is required in order to maintain employment use of site is appreciated and Members may consider that residential approval for pair of semi-detached dwellings within development envelope is acceptable in helping maintain viability of this longstanding boatyard complex. Additionally, proposal still incorporates use of Ranalagh Drive to access site which itself represents considerable planning gain in utilising road which was approved in 1995 for such usage which would reduce traffic movement on Ashlake Copse Road.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I consider that given site's established use and its importance in terms of employment generation and planning gain in utilising Ranalagh Drive for access and notwithstanding concerns of Environmental Health Officer, I am of opinion that on balance most appropriate recommendation is conditional approval.

       Recommendation -      Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Site and Location

Application relates to area of land forming part of Bowcombe Meadows Business Park located on south eastern side of Bowcombe Road. Area of land in question is presently used as car park and open storage compounds. Existing buildings are within site formerly used as contractor's depot for heavy plant, are now used for variety of commercial/industrial purposes.

Site is located within valley at lower level to road with intervening land sloping gradually away from road towards site. Boundaries of business park site are in general defined by post and wire fence and/or natural growth.

Relevant History

In December 1949 consent was granted for use of premises for any use within Class IV of the Town and country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1948, ie general industrial purposes. Since that time, numerous planning applications have been approved for use of site for industrial/commercial purposes, including storage purposes and parking of commercial vehicles.

Of particular relevance, planning permission was granted in February 1993 for refurbishment and repair of existing industrial buildings. Furthermore, in April 1999 conditional planning permission was granted for continued siting of portable buildings and storage containers, continued use of land for builders yard, continued use of land for ancillary parking of vehicles and change of use of barn to general industrial and storage uses.

Details of Application

Full planning permission is sought for erection of eleven industrial units in two blocks. Larger of two blocks containing seven units would be located on site of open storage compounds located at southern end of site and smaller block containing four units would be located directly opposite on area presently used as parking area. Submitted plans indicate that new parking area would be formed on area towards northern side of site enclosed on western and northern side by natural growth and eastern side by farm building within adjacent farm complex.

Larger of the two blocks of industrial units would have length of approximately 52 metres, a depth of 16 metres and height of 4.4 metres to eaves and 5.8 metres to ridge. Smaller block would have width of approximately 37 metres, a depth of 6.5 metres with height to eaves of 4.2 metres and 4.9 metres to ridge. Both buildings would be clad in mid green corrugated steel cladding to elevations and dark green corrugated steel roofing.

Application was accompanied by letter in which applicant's agent advises that the existing industrial buildings on the site require considerably upgrading and that it is his client's intention is to construct the new industrial units to enable the existing tenants to be relocated whilst renovation and reconstruction works are carried out to the existing 'low quality' buildings. Furthermore, he advises that units 6 and 7 within the development are to be occupied by a company wanting to establish itself on the Island and the lease of the premises this company currently occupies runs out in eighteen months time. The relocation of this company will provide ten jobs in a manufacturing and finishing process currently being carried out in Southampton.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside provides advice on the role of the planning system in relation to the countryside. In particular, the Guidance Note contains the following advice in respect of rural business:

"The range of industries that can be successfully located in rural areas is expanding. More commercial and light manufacturing activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. There are attractions to the firms and their staff in a countryside environment, and there are benefits to the local economy and employment. These firms help to bring new life and activity to rural communities, so are generally welcomed and quickly assimilated. Local Planning Authorities should bear in mind the vital role of enterprises, especially small scale enterprises, in promoting healthy economic activity in rural areas, which can contribute to both local and national competitiveness."

The guidance note advises that Local Planning Authorities should make provision in Development Plans for commercial and industrial development and should have regard for locational considerations, avoiding major developments in locations not well served by public transport or otherwise readily accessible to a local residential workforce. Furthermore, the guidance note acknowledges that in many rural areas provision needs to be made for new buildings, as well as the reuse of existing buildings and that sensitive small scale new development can be accommodated in and around many settlements.

The guidance note also provides advice on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), the primary objective of designation is conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. The guidance note advises that, in general, policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases, the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well being of the areas. In accordance with the advice contained in the guidance note, it would normally be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial or commercial development in these areas.

Site is located outside any settlement as defined by development envelopes on the IW Unitary Development Plan and is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the 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.

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies), will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impact can be ameliorated.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S10 - In areas of designated or 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.

S11 - Land use policies and proposals to reduce the impact on and reliance on the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to encourage the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

E1 - Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses.

E8 - Employment in the Countryside.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR3 - Locating Developments to Minimise the Need to Travel.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage.

Representations

Senior Planning Assistant (Policy) comments that site is situated in open countryside within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. She considers the policies of particular relevance to be G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and E8 (Employment in the Countryside). Having considered the requirements of these policies, she advises that, whilst it may be argued that the proposed development meets with the design issues of G5 and could prove to be of benefit to the rural economy, she does not consider that it has been demonstrated that the development requires a rural location. She does not consider the development to be significantly smaller than the existing units and it is therefore questionable whether the development meets with the requirements to be either small scale or ancillary to the existing businesses.

In terms of Policy E8, she expresses the view that the development does not appear to meet with the criteria of the policy as it is allowing for a relocation of existing firms rather than an expansion. Furthermore, she considers that the refurbishment of the existing units left vacant by the move could be considered speculative and future usage cannot therefore be demonstrably compatible and complementary to the existing uses. She notes that the applicant knows of a company wishing to relocate to the Island and suggests that they should be advised to contact the Isle of Wight Economic Partnership for guidance on suitable sites.

Highway Engineer expresses concern that proposal will result in an increase in vehicle movements and although the previously conditioned sight line of 4.5 by 90 metres seems to have been implemented, it is the best that can be achieved due to the topography. He considers that the Authority should resist any further intensification of the access and recommends refusal on grounds of generation of traffic and inadequate access.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer draws attention to concerns raised with regard to previous applications for this site. He considers that location of such business is not in keeping with the aims and objectives of the AONB Management Plan and is believed to be contrary to Policy C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. He considers that the current application increases the capacity of the industrial complex to almost twice the size of the existing and that this precludes it from being considered as ancillary to the existing industrial use, contrary to Policy G5(h) of the UDP. He comments that the site itself is highly visible from Bowcombe Road and although the applicant has attempted to provide screening, this is in the form of a Leylandii hedge which is in itself urbanising and not in keeping with the local character of the area. For these reasons, he strongly objects to the application.

The Council's Archaeologist draws attention to the fact that proposed buildings lie within an area recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Record as being of archaeological interest. The area contains the buried remains of iron age, Roman and medieval settlements including a possible Roman villa or high status site which might be deemed to be of national importance and thus worthy of the legal protection of inclusion on the Schedule of Ancient Monuments under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act. She draws attention to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 which states that the Council can require developers to provide the results of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation to support their application before a reasonable planning decision can be made. Therefore, she recommends that the developer is asked to provide the results of such an evaluation before a decision is made on the importance, nature, location, date and survival of the remains on this site.

Principal Environmental Health Officer comments that he is concerned about the possibility of adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring residential uses arising from the proposed development. He advises that during the summer of 1998 his department received a number of complaints from local residents concerning alleging noise nuisance from the operation of various machinery and activities within the existing units on the site and in the open air at the site. The fact that the units are occupied by a number of different individuals with different uncontrolled uses makes the investigation of the complaints extremely difficult. He makes reference to a retrospective application in 1999 which sought to legitimize the activities at the site and recommendations made by him for conditions to protect and safeguard local amenities. He recommends similar conditions in respect of current application which seek to control activities at the site in the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential properties.

The Environment Agency sought clarification on a number of issues prior to making a formal response. In particular, they advised that the site is located in a very sensitive area in terms of public water supply and that the Idlecombe main runs up the valley of the Lukely Brook and collects water from the chalk along its length. They advised that the main runs directly under the site and as a result recommended that Southern Water were consulted on the application so they could identify the exact location of the main and its depth and consider the impact of this development on it. Furthermore, they commented that no details have been provided regarding the disposal of trade effluent or sewage disposal and it is unclear whether there is sufficient capacity in the existing system to cater for additional flows. As a result, they requested that the applicant provides further details in relation to this issue.

Islandwatch object to application on grounds that proposal represents a substantial intensification of a use in an inappropriate location which would inevitably generate a lot more traffic. They consider that the whole establishment is an eyesore in an otherwise attractive rural location and the proposed units would not improve this.

Ten letters received from local residents together with a petition containing 23 signatures objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Existing buildings/uses at site detract from character of area - site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and development would degrade character/beauty further.

Existing units operate at all hours of day and night, seven days a week and proposal for additional units would exacerbate existing problems arising from noise/general disturbance created by commercial use of site.

Increased traffic created by additional units will exacerbate highway safety problems in Bowcombe Village.

Development proposed would be of no benefit to the area.

Development could lead to possible contamination of soil and water - site is within water catchment area.

Adequacy of sewers to cater for increased number of people at site is questioned.

Industrial development may be established on the adjacent farm holding which is currently on the market.

Site is visible from Carisbrooke Castle.

Adverse impact on flora and fauna in locality.

Additional floor space should be provided involving reuse of rural buildings rather than constructing new buildings in the countryside.

Site is in area prone to flooding.

Need for further industrial floor space in addition to existing employment sites is questioned.

One resident suggests that environmental impact analysis should be carried out and should include the following issues:

Visual impact assessment.

Traffic and road access assessment.

Land drainage survey.

Impact on associated farm wildlife.

Land and soil degradation.

Noise survey.

Social economic considerations.

Archaeological survey.

In addition to grounds for objections raised in respect of current proposal, concern is expressed at apparent abuse of planning system by owner of Bowcombe Meadows Business Park. In this respect, site is subject of ongoing investigations by the Enforcement Officer concerning alleged breaches of planning control.

Evaluation

Determining factors in considering application are whether further development of site for industrial purposes is acceptable in principle, whether access is of adequate standard to serve a more intensive commercial use and whether proposal would detract from character of the locality which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any effect on amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

Site is located outside any settlement defined by the development envelopes on the Unitary Development Plan in an area considered to be countryside where further development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals of the plan, will be resisted. Policy G5 of the plan sets out categories of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside of the defined settlements where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped and is of an appropriate scale. The categories of development in the policy include small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development. The policy also provides criteria where development will not be acceptable, including where this would reduce the quality of the environment and landscape.

The proposed industrial units would have gross floor space of approximately 1071 square metres. I consider that this would be a significant increase in floor space and cannot be considered as ancillary to the existing industrial units. The relocation and formation of the parking area would expand the site into an area not previously used for commercial purposes. Furthermore, I agree with the AONB Officer that the development would have a significant impact in the landscape. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the requirements of Policy G5 and other locational criteria and is considered to be unacceptable in principle.

The proposed industrial units are not considered to be of a high standard of design and are typical of those which can be found on any industrial estate. The development would result in removal of open storage compounds which are highly visible from the Bowcombe Road and which may be considered to detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. However, I do not consider that this provides sufficient justification to permit the proposed development which is considered to be substandard in terms of design and would detract from the character of the locality, particularly having regard to its designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, I consider that proposal clearly conflicts with policies which seek to protect the landscape character and in particular Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Unitary Development Plan.

I am advised by the Highway Engineer that whilst a visibility splay having an x dimension of 4.5 metres and a y dimension of 90 metres has been constructed, this is the best that can be achieved due to topography. The speed limit on Bowcombe Road at this point is 40 mph and whilst the Highway Engineer considers that the visibility splay constructed is adequate to cater for the existing uses at the site, the y dimension should ideally be 120 metres. Therefore, he considers that visibility at the junction of the access road to the site would be inadequate to cater for any intensification of the commercial use and, as previously stated, this cannot be improved due to the topography of the area. Furthermore, it should be noted that access drive slopes away from road and it is likely that heavy vehicles leaving site would be moving very slowly. Having regard to these factors, I accept that the access is unsatisfactory to serve an intensification of the industrial/commercial use at this site. I am also concerned that establishment of additional commercial/industrial units at this site would, having regard to its rural location, conflict with the requirements of Policy TR3 (Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel) which seeks to ensure that proposals for development minimise need to travel, especially by car. Application was not accompanied by any information as to how applicants would address this issue.

Whilst the Authority has received complaints from local residents regarding disturbance from the existing commercial activities principally resulting from traffic movements, it should be noted that a number of units at the site are not the subject of restrictions on operating hours. However, the impact of any additional development at the site on the amenities of the area in general and nearby residential properties in particular could be minimised by appropriate restrictions on the type of operation to be carried out within the buildings and hours of operation. Therefore, I do not consider that objections on grounds that proposal would increase disturbance to nearby residents would be sustainable.

With regard to comments of the Environment Agency, I consider that most likely effect of the development on the water main which collects water from the chalk along the length of the valley, would be contamination of ground water from any industrial processes carried out at the site. However, I consider that measures could be implemented, including bunding to chemical/oil storage tanks and interceptors in the drainage system to prevent contamination occurring. Following discussions with applicants agent, it is understood that foul sewage would be disposed of to the existing storage tank which he believes has some space capacity. If necessary alternative provision would be made by installing an additional system for the disposal of foul sewage.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, whilst I consider that potential adverse effects on amenities of nearby residential occupiers and ground water contamination could be safeguarded against by appropriate conditions of any planning permission, I consider that there remains a fundamental policy objection to the proposal due to the location of the site and that development as proposed would detract from the amenities and character of the locality which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

       Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Site and Location

The site is part of the curtilage of the former main school building and its grounds. This area itself is divided by the Upper Chine which is an established landscaped belt furnished with a stream and indigenous landscaping. The former school main building is on the site. Primary access is from a substandard driveway to the north, although existing access points exist further to the south west (off site). Between these access points is an established tree belt. Adjoining the school building and part of the site is the former Margaret Passmore Theatre known now as The Portico.

Generally this part of Shanklin appears as open undulating landscape with plateaus and the buildings appear very well integrated into this setting. The bridle path runs to the south of the site in a sweeping curve and terminates further north from the site. This route has now been improved and upgraded to form a road. On site clearance work has taken place.

Existing substantial specimen trees are scattered all over the site. Boundary treatments are informal.

Overall the site is attractive and forms a transitional area between town and country and has the appearance of very low density. The application site is approximately half the area of the immediate land surrounding the former school building. The former school building is located to the south west of the site. Generally the surrounding area is residential in character with a number of commercial properties used as hotels and guest houses.

Relevant History

The following planning permissions are appropriate:

An application entitled “Demolition and replacement of Norfolk Lodge & adjacent outbuildings with 2 detached dwellings; change of use of Clevelands Lodge (& associated Clevelands Cottage), Suffolk Lodge & Fairfield House from school dormitories to 3 detached houses; proposed 3 detached dwellings with garages & access drive off Priory Road; provision of access off Priory Road serving 2 detached dwellings. In addition, submitted for illustrative purposes only, the conversion of Upper Chine School to hotel, restaurant, themed wine bar & associated facilities; glazed enclosure over swimming pool, alterations to junction of Church Road/Priory Road and associated car/coach parking and 6 detached dwellings and the conversion of Downdale Lodge and Downdale Court to residential, site of Upper Chine School, Priory Road, Shanklin,”, was approved on 13 June 1998 subject to conditions and a legal agreement restricting the use of specific plots and the provision of affordable housing.

         Demolition of part of school building; outline for six dwellings; change of use of Downdale Lodge and Downdale Court to residential; change of use of school building to hotel; proposed car parking and landscaping and alteration to public footpath; new access road off Priory Road and highway improvements at junction of Church Road/Priory Road approved 5 August 1998.

(Early ‘release’ of three of the residential units was agreed by the Planning and Countryside Committee on 30 March 1999, along with releasing the requirement to improve the building’s envelope following an offer from the developer to demolish a further element of the main school building).

Demolition of theatre, partial demolition of former school building, conversion of two/three storey extension to former school building and provide thirteen self-contained units of holiday accommodation, four detached houses, resiting of car park and alterations to vehicular access, traditional restaurant building and conversion of former building to bar linked to restaurant. Planning permission was refused on 30 June 1999.

An application for partial demolition of former school building; conversion of two/three storey section of former school building and extension to form thirteen self-contained holiday units, swimming pool, gym and ancillary accommodation; infilling of existing swimming pool to form tennis court; alterations to vehicular access has been approved subject to satisfactory highway improvements, 19 November 1999.

TCP/23144A - Two travel lodges and parking area; extension and conversion of former school building to form hotel/bed and breakfast accommodation and integral swimming pool. Granted 27 October 2000.

TCP/23144B - Three holiday units, one disabled person's holiday unit and manager's accommodation (Phase 2). Granted 3 May 2000.

TCP/23144E - Change of use of manager's office accommodation to form five holiday units with access off Church Road. Granted 13 September 2000.

TCP/23144F - Three holiday units. Granted 19 March 2001.

TCP/23144G - Conversion of living quarters in north wing to form ten flats. Refused 28 June 2001.

TCP/23144H - Demolition of theatre; construction of two travel lodges, formation of vehicular access and parking area. Granted 30 November 2001.

Details of Application

This application now occupies a reduced area to that which was originally submitted. In essence, the old school building will be converted into residential accommodation with very little external alterations which will not be tied down to holiday accommodation.

Coupled with the conversion are extensions and alterations to the theatre building in order to bring it up to a satisfactory standard for use by the public. The proposals include disabled facilities (toilets, ramps etc), improvements internally to the lighting system and additional facilities for eating etc.

Extensions include a one storey conservatory to the rear and one storey extensions to the front effectively filling in the void of the existing overhang.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

PPG1 emphasises the following:

           The Government is committed to a plan-led system of development control which is given statutory force by Section 54A of the 1990 Act which emphasises where adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies then application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

“The objective of the plan-led system can be summarised as:

           ensuring rational and consistent decisions;

                                   achieving greater certainty;

                                   securing public involvement in shaping local planning policies;

                                   facilitating quicker planning decisions;

                                   reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals.”

PPG21 The planning system should therefore facilitate and encourage development and improvement in tourist provision. The development control system views that all new tourist related development is subject to proper appraisal where necessary, a new development can be made subject to conditions regulating its scale, location, access, design, landscaping, hours of operation and other requirements that will lessen its impact.

Unitary Development Plan

The Unitary Development Plan embodies PPG21 and the economic significance of tourism and its environmental impact and its importance in land use planning.

Application site forms part of H4 (94) (which is a typing error on the plan and should read ‘H3') and as T7(e).

Policy T7(e) states:

“Planning applications for tourism uses in the area specified below and found on the proposals map will be approved:

(e)       Upper Chine (formerly school site).”

Appendix H - Summary of existing and proposed developments:

Item 16 - Upper Chine, Shanklin.

A tourism development area T7(e) comprising of 2.5 hectares of land, including school buildings, playing fields and the Margaret Passmore Theatre which, due to the relocation of the school, are now surplus to requirements. The site is adjacent to Shanklin Conservation Area and adjoins Big Mead Recreation Area. Access is from Church Road. An area of land allocated for residential development, in conjunction with this site, is considered suitable for reuse of the former large house and low density development of part of the school grounds, not complete redevelopment of the site. It is considered that the site is suitable for conference facilities for tourism accommodation, although reuse for educational purposes would also be acceptable. Any use of the site would need to reflect the character of the area.

Within the Unitary Development Plan, the following policies apply:

H1       “The majority of new residential development will be expected to be located within the defined development envelopes of the main settlements of Cowes, East Cowes, Newport, Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin. Planning applications for major residential schemes outside the main Island towns will not be permitted.”

H3       “Planning applications for residential development will be approved on the sites listed in Appendix A subject to any specific guidance as detailed.”

Appendix A (item 94) - land at Upper Chine Shanklin:

“Two areas of land totalling 2.4 hectares to the south of Shanklin are included in the development envelope and allocated for residential development. The site of the former cottage hospital, derelict in a major fire should be redeveloped in keeping with the large properties in the area. The second area is part of a comprehensive development scheme in conjunction with tourism development allocated to the north and will be the subject of a detailed brief to guide the whole development. This area includes now redundant dormitory accommodation of Upper Chine School. Some parts of the former school accommodation are not considered suitable for retention or conversion whilst the former large houses within the grounds could be largely retained either as a large individual dwelling or as flatted accommodation. The parts of the former school grounds included in the development envelope are considered suitable for low density housing development within the landscaped grounds. Both the upper and lower playing fields are not considered suitable for development and are to be retained as open space.”

Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development in the Site), Policy D3 (Landscaping), D11 (Crime and Design), D13 (Energy Conservation), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), TR6 (Cycling and Walking), TR17 (Public Rights of Way) and C8 (Nature Conservation).

Representations

Highway Engineer makes no adverse comments on this application.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment, but advises that notification under Section 49 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 has to be made to the Environmental Health Officer.

Definitive Map Officer from Highways and Transportation comments as follows:

"Note that Section 6(b) of the application is incorrect, as public footpath SS91(Vaughan Way) runs adjacent to the site. It appears from the plans that the proposal will use existing vehicle accesses and there will be no additional vehicle traffic using footpath 91 (Vaughan Way), in which case I have no comment to make, but I would be glad if you could notify me if there is any intentional or amendment at a later stage which would open an access across the footpath."

The Theatres Trust comment:

"We note that your covering letter states that this 'seeks to generate monies for the inclusion of the existing theatre'. I am not clear whether the works proposed would be contrary to the Development Plan policies or have any potential negative effects. Our expertise is in theatres buildings. In order to assess whether you are being presented with 'a good deal', I will need to know this as well as the following. How much money will be generated, what will it be spent on, what mechanisms will ensure that it is spent in the best way, will there be a Section 106 agreement?"

Shanklin Town Council comment:

"Members were opposed to the conversion of the living quarters and remaining school building into flats. This building should be retained for tourist related use. Members were however supportive of the retention and improvement of the Margaret Passmore Theatre."

Five letters of objection from two writers concerned regarding the surrounding area and former uses, requesting that any approval should have conditions containing the development with no consideration being given to trees on the site. Work being carried out without permission, access being formed, greater activity at junctions and any approval should prevent burning on site.

Twenty three letters of support primarily focus on being an asset to the area, contribution to tourism, improvement to derelict and neglected site, securing a use for this special building, a long-term solution as well as of local community benefit.

Evaluation

In order to keep this application in context of the Unitary Development Plan’s policy for the area, a brief mention of the history is relevant.

Although the area of application is shown on the Unitary Development Plan as an area where Policy T7(e) is appropriate, it is clear from the text that this site should be developed in conjunction with H4(94).

This has happened in the approved applications described within the history above. Generally speaking, the Planning and Countryside Committee allowed increased density and two units outside the development envelope to enable the former Girls’ School main building to be ‘pump primed’. That is, the profits from one development are set against the potential losses from another, allowing it to be more likely to be developed.

For this enabling development to work successfully, ideally an end result should be strived for. The ‘result’ under the two planning applications TCP/14525W and Z were described as follows:

           Conversion of Upper Chine School to hotel, restaurant, themed wine bar and associated facilities and glazed enclosure over swimming pool.

           Change of school buildings to an hotel.

Subsequent to these approvals, Members have also agreed to relax the restriction on timing of occupancy of three of the five agreed residential units to allow the costing which was to go forward to the renovation of the school buildings to be put to use in the demolition of outer buildings. Three schemes for holiday accommodation have recently been approved on the scheme to the south and two lots of the travel lodges giving a total of three (two overlap).

So that is where we are today. The overall comprehensive development has moved on and we find ourselves looking at half of the remaining site for a residential use and the conversion of the theatre.

Unfortunately, this remaining part of the site has been further split by the main building now having two owners. Part of the main building has now also been taken outside the application site, requiring further details to be submitted regarding the internal arrangements.

Quite clearly there is little physical alterations to the main building and no principal change to the theatre. Therefore this application should be determined primarily on the principle of allowing residential accommodation. On its own residential accommodation has been refused for ten flats on policy grounds. This application is somewhat different in that it brings forward and safeguards the use of the theatre by effectively paying for its retention by the share of profits made on the residential development.

It is clearly a departure and it is my opinion that it simply falls to be determined on how much weight should be given to this community facility and whether in itself this outweighs the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan. That is, the material consideration of retaining this theatre outweighs the effective concession of allowing residential development.

It is a fine balance to make, but there does seem from the letters of support and the perceived feeling from the community that this asset is required. To date, it can be clearly seen that money has been invested in a refurbishment of the building so there does appear to be a genuine intent to improve this facility. An engineer's report on the structure of the buildings has been submitted and shows that maintenance and repair costs could be prohibitive.

The proposed theatre's use will be more than a theatre and will attempt to attract school parties (possibly staying overnight) and other uses of conference facilities. This ties in with the original intentions of Policy T7.

To date, the designation for Tourism (T7) has only come forward with holiday accommodation which although meritable in itself, does not actually provide any variety of facilities. The theatre would. It is important that the permission if forthcoming establishes how much money will be generated for the theatre, what it will be spent on and what mechanisms will ensure that it is spent in the best way.

Figures have been produced that the maintenance running costs per year will be £70,000.

Specific legal advice would have to be clarified, but my discussions have led that it could be possible that a contribution of £50,000 for four years paid into an agreed trust with a proviso that the theatre site is not redeveloped for the next ten years and the revocation of the existing planning permission TCP/23144H is voluntarily made.

There may of course be some scope if planning permission is forthcoming to use the accommodation within the Travel Lodge for overnight accommodation.

Turning to the detail, the internal arrangements within the theatre are what you would expect in a theatre with some form of ancillary usage. The extensions to the front take into account the overall design of the 1970s building.

The conversion of the former school building to residential development by definition relates to an existing building which in itself will have an established visual impact. Improvements to the building's envelope is focused on minor alterations as touched upon earlier. The proposed renovations will have a positive impact of this attractive building..

Car parking on the site is adequate.

Landscaping apart from the existing survey submitted has not been shown, but it is important to retain as much as possible of the landscape into the Upper Chine and in an appropriate position to safeguard its integrity is suggested.

Facilities are provided in the theatre for the general public.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that bringing forward the benefit and retention of the theatre outweighs in this instance the primacy of the Unitary Development Plan and such an application should be supported. It is important to establish the mechanism and the delivery of such.

1.        Recommendation         -      Approval (subject to no adverse comments being received by 17 April 2002).

Conditions/Reasons:

2.        Recommendation         -      Enter into a Section 106 agreement securing the use of the theatre by an appropriate contribution and mechanism for delivery.

3.        Recommendation         -      Investigate the unlawful use of the remaining building which appears to be used for residential purposes.

Plan

Site and Location

Application site relates to agricultural land some thirteen hectares in size which lies on the south side of the Newport to Shalfleet road A3054 opposite a group of buildings which includes the WDF plant, Sydenhams timber merchants and the Council's storage facilities. The site is relatively level but with a stream running through the site from the south western corner to the north eastern corner. The site is bounded to the east by Poleclose Lane which provides access to a number of residential properties including Poleclose Farm which lies to the south of the site. The lane is also a public footpath (no. 68) and links to footpath no. 69 which doglegs around Poleclose Farm and runs along the southern boundary of the site for approximately 250 metres. To the west of the site on the main road frontage is the car dealership operation.

Relevant History

None.

Details of Application

Full planning permission sought for development consisting of the following elements.

Firstly, change of use of the land with approximately two thirds of it given over to the formation of a nine hole golf course. Plans show ground levels to be raised up to 0.9 metre to form greens and bunkers.

Secondly, formation of a golf driving range in the western third of the site.

Thirdly, construction of a building some 12 metres by 21 metres under a pitched roof in north western part of site which is to provide an office, shop area, changing rooms, store and a coffee shop. On the southern side of this building is attached a further structure 6 metres wide by 68 metres in length providing twenty bays facing out towards the golf driving area. Plans show that four floodlights would be fixed 3.2 metres above ground level on this building.

Finally, a new vehicle access is shown formed in the north east corner of the site between the buildings and the road providing access to a car parking area with 48 spaces.

Letter accompanying application indicates that the course has been designed to utilise the existing site contours with the teeing areas positioned so that the golf balls are driven away from the direction of Forest Road.

Letter also indicates that regarding the proposed floodlighting these will be positioned in accordance with the drawings and used during British wintertime but switched off after 21:00 hours. Floodlights designed to illuminate an area 220 yards in front of the driving bays and lights will be concentrated not to extend over a wider area. 1,000 watt bulbs will be used with one in each floodlight.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

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

Paragraph 2.14 - "The Government's policies of the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection."

Paragraph 3.13 - "Increasing opportunities for people to enjoy the countryside for sport and recreation provides new uses of land in the countryside and is an important source of income and employment."

PPG17 - Sport and Recreation.

Paragraph 57 - "Golf courses can open up the countryside for recreation, but they can also have a significant impact. They should be located and designed to ensure harmony with the surrounding countryside and to conserve the natural environment. Each proposal should contain full details of the site and of the impact to the development proposed, including the effect on public Rights of Way. Any significant associated development such as hotels, should be considered on their own merits. Special care should be taken in considering applications in areas such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, green belts, historic landscapes and the Heritage Coast."

The site lies within the open countryside and the following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply:

Strategic Policies

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

Detailed Policies

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D14 - Light Spillage.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland.

L2 - Formal Recreational Provision.

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends refusal.

Rights of Way Assistant makes following comments:

1. Plans do not show the Definitive Line of public Rights of Way adjacent site.

2. Design of course needs to comply with English Golfing Union guidance on Golf Course Design and Public Rights of Way. At present outline design has the eighth hole been played towards the line of Public Footpath N69. This is unsuitable as it could place the walking public at risk from over hit golf balls.

3. With increasing volumes of housing within the development envelope to the east of this site, we strongly feel the public footpath network immediately around the Newport area is an increasingly important amenity. This application we believe would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the existing paths due to its invasive and urbanising nature, especially with regard to provision of floodlighting.

Ecology Officer - Site has no identified features of nature conservation and no hedgerows which would qualify as being important under Hedgerow Regulations.

Design of new golf courses can provide considerable scope for landscape and wildlife enhancement yet layout of course as proposed would do little to enhance appearance of the farmed landscape and little to benefit wildlife.

Gunville Brook flows diagonally across the site and this could provide a landscape feature of interest on the site with perhaps the development of wetland areas. Plan makes no reference to provision for irrigation of the greens. The design of irrigation, drainage and retention systems should provide for efficient use of water and the protection of water quality. Buffer zones could be identified and designed to protect surface water resources.

There are some existing mature and semi-mature trees (principally oak) on the site and it is unclear how they will be protected, particularly in the light of requirement for some land raising. Current proposal for tree planting somewhat regimented. More attention needs to be paid to landscaping and planting scheme using native species to enhance landscape".

AONB Officer Although not in AONB site is visible from AONB to south and would therefore have an impact on it. Have following comments to make:

Most obvious impact on AONB would be proposed floodlighting and I would object to proposal for provision of lighting in this location.

Application plans do not accurately show position of surrounding public Rights of Way.

Layout of course clearly not been designed with reference to English Golfing Union guidance on Golf Course Design and Public Rights of Way.

Proposal would appear to necessitate removal of several hedgerows.

Feel application ill conceived and will alter character of landscape to an unacceptable degree. It would be contrary to landscape conservation, light spillage, hedgerow and agricultural diversification policies.

Recommend further thought needed given number of issues raised before permission for this scheme is considered.

Council's Archaeological Officer requests conditions.

English Nature Although development site is adjacent SSSI we do not consider it will significantly affect the special interest of the site.

Environment Agency has no objection in principle but would request certain conditions.

Development Plan Section Policy L7 of the UDP provides the basis for considering golf courses and appropriate associated development. The level of associated development is limited although floodlighting of the driving range should be carefully considered. It may be that the impact would be minimal given the location and adjoining uses. The relationship with Newport itself would also limit car journeys and make the facility more accessible.

Transco - No objection in principle but request applicant makes contact with this office to discuss issues in relation to working in vicinity of gas pipeline, i.e. location of bunkers, construction ground works, landscaping, fencing etc.

Six letters received including one from The Ramblers and another form Island Watch. Main points summarised below:

Plans do not adequately show lines of the Rights of Way. True definitive line of Newport N69 runs tight on the southern boundary of the western section of the 9-hole course.

Three of the tees drive towards the Rights of Way and terminate in a tee close to the boundary. Anticipate potential danger to members of the public using Rights of Way and to visitors to properties accessed by Poleclose Lane. No indication of protected screening along sides adjacent to Rights of Way.

Driving range directed towards section of Right of Way which runs across open ground south of the range. Potential for such a drive to reach Right of Way.

Expect Rights of Way to remain open and in good order whilst development takes place.

Objector to proposal is concerned over golf balls frightening horses using Poleclose Lane.

Will generate more traffic on a fast busy road, there is no turning right facility into site.

Design totally out of keeping with rural setting.

Floodlights will be visible for miles around at night.

This is a rural area and should remain unchanged.

Will involve loss of hedgerows.

Use of floodlighting will dominate area irrespective of limitation on operating hours.

Notwithstanding measures believe golf balls will end up on Forest Road.

Will set dangerous precedent for other development in area.

Floodlights will face three properties to south.

This land part of an area excluded from development envelope at UDP enquiry by Inspector.

No mention of how sewage and land drainage will be managed.

Evaluation

This application was submitted in January 2001 and since the beginning of March 2001 officers have been attempting to gain further information from the applicant regarding a range of issues, many of which have been covered in the Representations section outlined above. Unfortunately, despite a number of chase up letters no further information has been received and accordingly it has been decided that the matter should be determined by the Committee based on the information presently submitted.

The determining factors with regards to this application are firstly, whether the proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regards to development in this locality, secondly whether the design of the course in terms of its impact on the site itself and on its relationship to surrounding land and uses is considered adequate, thirdly whether the size and design of the range of buildings is considered satisfactory, fourthly whether the proposal to install lights on the driving range is considered to be acceptable and finally, whether the access arrangements are considered satisfactory.

With regards to the first point on planning policy certain elements within the UDP would support the proposal subject to clarification on the exact nature of the impact on the surrounding area. The open nature of the use would maintain virtually an undeveloped site and on balance therefore I believe that the proposal may be acceptable subject to the consideration of its more detailed impacts.

Concerning the second point on the implications of the development, these would relate to the impact of the work itself within the site and secondly, impact arising from the nature of the use going beyond its boundaries. With regard to the former, the plans indicate a degree of land raising for the greens and bunkers up to a maximum of 0.9 metres above ground level. However, no further details have been provided on the quantity of material required or indeed the time scale within which any such infilling would take place. Furthermore, I believe that given the nature of the land itself it would require more than the greens and bunkers to be raised to provide a course that would be usable for most of the year. There is no indication that the ground levels within the driving range area will be altered. Other factors such as clarification on landscaping and water management have also been sought but are not forthcoming.

As Members will note from the representations outlined above concerns have been raised with regards to the design and layout of the golf course and its implications on the use of the public footpath network that bounds the site to the west and to the south. This is also a point that has been raised with the applicants but to which no response has been made. In the absence of any views, I believe the application must be considered on the basis of the details as set out on the submitted plans and this shows at least two greens in close proximity to the southern boundary with the implication that golf balls could be over hit. Hole 5 is a slight diagonal shot from a teeing off point onto a green in the south east corner of the site with the implication that a misdirected shot could land on Poleclose Lane.

Regarding the fourth issue of floodlighting this has attracted objections from local residents and from the AONB Project Officer with regards to the impact of the lights when viewed from the Downs to the south. Applicants have been requested to withdraw this element of the application but no response had been received. Accordingly I maintain my concerns over this aspect of the scheme.

Concerning the third issue on the impact of the buildings, this would create a substantial feature in the north west corner of the site and the applicants have been advised that the scheme could be improved by a reconsideration of the design to reflect a more countryside location, together with a clear indication of the nature of the materials to be used. Again, no response had been received to this request. Under these circumstances I have concerns over the size, mass and appearance of the buildings as shown on the submitted plans.

Finally, regarding the issue of access, the Highway Engineer has indicated that he objects to the proposal to form an access off the main A3054 Forest Road. Although agent has indicated a desire to resolve the objection no revised scheme has been submitted.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report it is considered that there are a number of fundamental objections to the application which I believe could not be resolved through appropriate use of conditions. Accordingly, I believe that the application should be refused and recommend accordingly.

           Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Representations

Proposal has been the subject of detailed discussion with the Highways Department which has resulted in a number of amendments to the scheme with additional comments and suggestions relating to additional information. These are outlined below:

Previous proposal to indicate a loading bay in St. Marys Road is to be omitted as it is no longer required.

No mechanical barriers are to be provided and control of vehicles using Cross Street will be by a "prohibition of vehicles" traffic order with exemption for deliveries.

Commercial vehicles delivering to properties in the eastern section of Cross Street will be allowed to exit via the public car park and bays will have to be amended to allow this to occur.

Highway Engineer suggests that a before and after car park bay layout plan be provided by the applicant indicating the number of spaces which will be available following provision of an access route through the car park for the commercial vehicles.

Cowes Town Council who are the applicants raise no objection to the initial proposal. They have been advised of receipt of the revised proposal and at time of preparing report no comments have been received.

Initial proposal attracted one letter of objection written on behalf of five businesses in the area with the main subject of the letter being the effect that the pedestrianisation may have in terms of deliveries to their premises.

Since receipt of that letter the scheme has been revised to include limited servicing access with the application being re-advertised. Re-advertisement has resulted in receipt of one letter of objection from a Cowes resident which is summarised as follows:

Writer considers proposal waste of public resources and that latest revised scheme lacks any merit.

Area dominated by three public houses and car park entrance with engineering workshop and therefore lacks any visual or environmental features associated with Town Squares.

Scheme appears to be wasting public money on additional seating which will be mainly used by frequenters of a local pub which writer alleges is particularly noisy.

Concern that the Square will attract unsocial behaviour.

Writer considers that any Town Square should reflect Cowes unique and nautical heritage with at least some view over the water.

Evaluation

Application relates to area of land immediately to the southeast of The Painters Arms - public house, and to the northwest of the A3 premises Corries Cabin. Land currently forms the vehicular access off Cross Street to and from St. Marys car park. Immediately to the northeast is the rear of commercial properties which front High Street further to the northeast.

Proposal before Members in its revised form seeks consent for creation of a Town Square which incorporates a block paved area forming a road which provides servicing access off Cross Street through to St. Marys car park. Control of the use of this road will be by way of a "prohibition of vehicles" traffic order with exemption for delivery vehicles. This road to include a change in colour block indicating areas of pedestrian priority. Remaining area to be surfaced in a resin bonded aggregate finish. Other features of the proposal are lighting columns in traditional style, cast iron bollards separating the road from the pedestrian area, planting of semi-mature trees incorporating 2.2 metre diameter seat with matching tree guard.

Proposal also includes a traditional style lantern mounted in steel archway with cast iron bollard to prevent any vehicular access, sited between the pedestrian area immediately to the south of The Painters Arm and St. Marys car park. Finally, the proposal envisages a proposed sculpture to be located adjacent Cross Street.

In support of the revised proposal the Projects Officer makes the following statement:

Deliveries - Cross Street would be improved by the introduction of a dedicated loading only status excluding all private cars and vehicle access to St. Marys Road car park.

Parking - there is no net loss of permitted parking spaces in the current proposal and a review of St. Marys Road car park layout is to be carried out with a view to increasing the capacity where possible.

Long Term Non Loading Vehicle Access - during discussions the option for excluding general traffic on a permanent basis was raised and will be given full consideration. The current proposal is for a Traffic Regulation Order limiting access from 10 am - 6 pm.

This has been a long standing application following the concerns in respect of servicing of commercial premises with the scheme having been radically amended to accommodate such servicing facilities. In the absence of any adverse comments from these commercial premises who have been advised of the receipt of the revised proposals I have no reason to believe other than they are acceptable to them. This is supported by copy correspondence which has now accompanied the revised plans.

I accept that the introduction of some servicing facility for the commercial premises has affected the integrity of the Square and its main strategy to be used by pedestrians only. Conversely, however, in order for the commercial premises to function efficiently servicing is clearly essential and therefore a compromise solution has been reached with the current revised scheme.

Although this location does not have waterfront access or views, this issue has been the subject of some considerable research and its relationship to St. Marys car park does offer opportunities. It is also easily accessible from Shooters Hill/High Street and the commercial use of the servicing facilities is unlikely to be so frequent as to seriously interrupt the enjoyment of the Square area.

It is accepted that this scheme does not achieve the original strategy to exclude all traffic from this area, however, by reducing any traffic movement to a small number of commercial vehicles only and omitting car access altogether will create a more user friendly area and remove the conflict which currently occurs between the commercial traffic and the use of Cross Street for private car use accessing St. Marys car park. St. Marys car park will continue to have "in and out" access from St. Marys Road. In order to create the Square there will be a need for a Traffic Regulation Order, and without such Order, the scheme, even if planning permission were granted, could not go ahead. In essence, the proposal represents a detailed development of the Town Square scheme put forward for public consultation in January 2000 by the Council on behalf of Cowes Town Council.

Following the deferral of consideration in respect of this application which was requested by Officers this matter has been the subject of some further discussion with the result of the above amendments. For Members information the reason that the vehicle barriers have been omitted is that experience suggests these are unlikely to survive action by vandals and it would be better not to have them at all and control vehicular use by delivery vehicles by way of a traffic order as described above. Second omission is a loading bay which had been sited close to the junction of Cross Street with St. Marys Street and would have impacted on the parking spaces which are set aside for permit holders. It has now been decided that this bay is no longer required. Therefore, this proposal will have no effect on the level of parking for permit holders. The third important consideration was the impact of commercial vehicles exiting through St. Marys car park through to the junction on to St. Marys Road. I am advised that a sketch has been prepared which has set aside a route through the car park of some 5 metres in width with the car parking layout being rearranged accordingly. I am advised at this time that such a rearrangement is likely to provide approximately the same number of car parking spaces that exist on the car park at the moment. Also this will involve a widening of the access onto St. Marys Street to accommodate larger vehicles turning onto that road. The result of these discussions and agreed procedures is an additional suggested condition requiring that the rearrangement of the St. Marys Street car park area to provide a through route for commercial vehicles and the amendment to car parking layout be carried out and completed prior to the town square being brought into use.

I believe the scheme represents a suitable compromise and will provide a valuable facility contributing to the vitality and viability of the Cowes town centre. Site itself abuts both the Cowes town centre boundary and the Cowes Conservation Area and the general change of use of this area along with the resurfacing and introduction of appropriate hard and soft landscaping should ensure an enhancement of this area which currently is of poor quality providing little or no benefits to the community apart from access to the car park for which there is an alternative in any event. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider the application to be acceptable in its revised form subject to appropriate conditions.

       Recommendation - Approval (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Representations

Calbourne Parish Council raise no objection.

Letter received from the local Member supporting the principle of building affordable housing for young people to enable them to remain in their community. She considers that such properties could provide housing for young people who cannot normally afford to buy on the open market and could be subject to conditions to tie them to the family home or restrictions imposed similar to an agricultural condition. In doing so, this would be beneficial to the rural communities, maintaining a balance of age and gender. She comments that the only social housing which can be built in rural areas appears to be in larger numbers and it would be preferable if one or two could be built.

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate visibility and parking and that proposal does not make provision for a turning facility. However, if a suitable parking and turning layout could be achieved, he would recommend appropriate conditions.

Letter received from local resident expressing following concerns in respect of proposal:

Potential implications for further development in rural hamlet of Locks Green.

Devastating consequences to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Location is in close proximity to an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

This is an environmentally sensitive area with a variety of flora and fauna, e.g. home to endangered population of red squirrels.

Evaluation

Application relates to roughly rectangular shaped area of land forming part of curtilage to existing residential property within the hamlet of Locks Green. Property has access over unmade track along northern boundary leading to two garages at rear of site, one of which would be allocated to new dwelling. Existing property forms one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings located within small group of houses in an area rural in character.

Planning permission is sought for construction of chalet bungalow providing accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen/dining room and w.c. at ground floor level with three bedrooms, one with en-suite facilities, and bathroom at first floor.

Applicants have submitted letter providing information in support of proposal. They accept that application is contentious and state that they have not ignored effect of proposal on the environment. They advise that proposal involves provision of dwelling within the garden of their property to be occupied by their son and his partner at a cost that he can meet. They comment that it is impossible for the younger generation to afford housing in the rural community, their son being no exception, and urge the following considerations to be taken into account:

Young people should be encouraged to remain in the rural community to prevent the decay and eventual cessation of village life as has happened at nearby Newtown.

Young people should be encouraged to purchase homes at an affordable cost in the rural community and this aim could be achieved by allowing dwelling to be built in garden of their property.

Their son works in the area and is a valuable asset to the local community which would be lost if he were to move away.

Although proposal may set precedent, there are justifiable reasons to allow the development.

Neighbours have been consulted and none have expressed opposition.

Parish Council and local Councillor support proposal.

Determining factors in considering proposal are whether development is acceptable in principle and whether the development would detract from the character and amenities of the area.

Site is located outside any settlement defined by the development envelopes in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, but is immediately adjacent areas designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Heritage Coast and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Relevant policies of the 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.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G2 - Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

The site is located within the countryside, outside any defined settlement, and I do not consider that the proposal to construct a dwelling as proposed falls within any of the categories of development which may exceptionally be allowed in such areas. Whilst applicants have indicated that dwelling would be occupied by their son and his partner, who could not otherwise afford to buy a house in the area on the open market, I am not satisfied that a proposal for a one off dwelling would be justified on the basis on the affordable housing policies or is the type of development, involving the construction of a detached dwelling providing relatively generous accommodation, which was envisaged when these policies were formulated. Therefore, I consider there to be a fundamental policy objection to the current proposal and, in the absence of any overriding justification, is the type of development which could be repeated all too often. A condition restricting occupation to the applicant's son or family would not be appropriate, as the building proposed would be permanent, but the particular personal circumstances of the family may well change.

In terms of the effect of the proposal on the character of the area, I consider that the design of the dwelling shown on the submitted plans would be out of keeping with surrounding dwellings and, in particular, the applicants property. In general, I consider that the design of the dwelling and the intensification of residential development in the locality would be detrimental to the amenities and rural character of the area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that there is a fundamental policy objection to the development of the site for residential purposes and that the proposal would detract from the character of the area by reason of the design and general appearance of the dwelling and the intensification of residential use. Furthermore, the access is inadequate to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate visibility.

       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Representations

Highway Engineer raises no objection.

Two letters of objection relating to increased traffic flow/congestion, no off street parking on premises, loss of sun to neighbouring properties, loss of privacy, noise creation, lack of outside amenity space for residents, reduction in property values.

Social Services and Housing section has no objection to application which would help with the recruitment and retention of staff which will benefit residents' care.

Isle of Wight Joint Registration and Inspection Unit understand proposal will not directly affect residents but comment that the design and modifications should ensure does not compromise the fire safety arrangements in the home and that the flat should be used solely for staff employed by the registered person.

Evaluation

Autumn House is an existing residential care home which has had substantial previous extensions. It is located relatively close to the town centre in an area with mixed uses, hotel, guest houses, residential, shop opposite.

This application relates to a second floor extension to provide additional accommodation to staff flat which was originally approved in May 2001. The proposal is for a dormer extension which will provide second bedroom and bathroom measuring approx. 2.5 x 4.5 overall.

In June 1998 consent was granted for the change of use of No. 23 from private dwelling to residential home for the elderly first floor bridge link and single storey extension between 23 and 25 Avenue Road. The overall establishment therefore spans what was originally three properties.

In accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, proposals will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and in particular where they are sympathetic in scale, of a height, mass compatible with surrounding buildings, provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to development and adjoining uses and do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is of appropriate size, scale and design to original property and whether it would have a significant impact to the detriment of character of the locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties.

With regard effect on neighbouring properties the proposal is to be positioned well away from the rear (western) boundary and a flat roof two storey element exists between proposal and boundary. Dormer will be visible to north of site (Carter Street). Due to significant distance from the boundaries and height of proposed dormer, I do not consider proposal presents loss of amenity to properties to the rear. In terms of design and in considering existing alterations, proposal presents minimal impact and does not detract from overall design of building.

With regard parking concerns, alterations for additional small bedroom to staff accommodation will arguably result in less reliance on the use of car and traffic generation.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am of opinion that proposals supports existing established business and extension will have minimum impact on visual amenities. Proposal acceptable and accords with policy.

           Recommendation     -          Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Representations

Parish Council have confirmed that they would recommend refusal of application if proposal included a flat roof.

Evaluation

This application relates to a detached L-shaped bungalow constructed of artificial stone blocks under a concrete tiled roof situated on the northern side of Chatfeild Road immediately adjacent to a public footpath. The bungalow is one of a group of similar dwellings situated on the eastern side of Niton village.

The application for consideration is for a single storey extension located on the western side of the property which would partially infill the "L" in an area which is currently used as a paved patio. There is a 1.8 metre fence/trellis screening this from the front garden. The extension would be constructed with artificial stone blocks to match the existing property and the submitted details indicate that the extension would have a flat roof construction. The overall dimensions would be 6 metres by 3 metres with the front wall being set back approximately 2.7 metres from the front of the existing property screened by the fence/trellis as outlined above.

Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council regarding the flat roof design are noted, I am of the opinion that a pitched roof in this location would be difficult to construct in such a way as to blend with the existing roof whilst not being unduly dominant in its own right. The extension would be in the recessed "L" shaped part of the building and it would be bounded on two sides by the existing eaves line of the gabled roof to the main property. Any pitched roof in this area would result in construction of long valley gutters and an awkward roof shape which may appear incongruous in this location. As the extension would be set back from the front of the property in a well screened location I am of the opinion that a flat roofed extension would be appropriate in this case and would allow the existing gabled roof of the main property to remain visually dominant.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed extension would be of modest proportions and low profile with elevations and windows to match those of the existing dwelling. Whilst the extension would have a flat roof, I consider that any alternative to incorporate a pitched roof would result in an extension of increased mass which would complicate the roof lines of the building and would therefore have greater visual impact than the present proposal.

The extension would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and I therefore consider that the submitted details are in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies S6, G4, D1, D2 and H7 and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

See joint report on application no. LBC/24392A/P1269/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

Members may recall that this application was initially considered by Committee on 18 February 2002 when the decision was deferred and notwithstanding the terms of UDP policy C17, Members considered the principle of residential conversion to be acceptable bearing in mind the proximity of the adjoining buildings in the complex which have already been converted to residential use. However, the design of the proposed conversion was not considered acceptable, particularly the balcony and decking and the decision was deferred for further negotiations to achieve a more satisfactory conversion protecting the character and features of the Listed Building. Negotiations have now taken place resulting in submission of revised details which are before Members for consideration.

Representations

Highway Engineer makes no comments on application.

Environment Agency have no objection in principle to proposal but indicate that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 approval would be required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comments on application.

Parish Council have no objection.

Letter received from Islandwatch objecting to proposals as no alternative use appears to have been considered so residential conversion would be counter to Unitary Development Plan policy. This amounts to residential development in the countryside.

Evaluation

These applications are for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for conversion of the existing stables and tack room to form a small self-contained unit of residential accommodation.

The building comprises two linked elements, with the main part being constructed of natural stone under a gabled tiled roof and is Listed as being of Architectural and Historic Interest forming part of the group of former farm buildings at Apse Manor Farm.

When the applications were initially considered by the Development Control Committee on 18 February 2002 the determining factors were considered to be firstly, whether the proposed conversion of this rural building for residential purposes would comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies and national guidelines and secondly, whether the proposed alterations to the building itself would serve to retain its character and historical integrity as a traditional rural building which is Listed for its Architectural and Historic Interest.

Having considered the issues, Members accepted that notwithstanding the terms of Unitary Development Plan policy C17, the principle of residential conversion would be acceptable in this case bearing in mind the proximity of the adjoining buildings in the complex which have been converted for residential use.

With regard to the alterations to the building, the originally submitted plans indicated that whilst the existing openings on the southern and western elevations would be retained, the proposed alterations to the northern elevation included the installation of five new window and door openings and the erection of a raised deck supported on timber posts with railings and external steps. Following further negotiations, revised plans have now been submitted which have reduced the number and scale of new openings on the northern elevation and have also omitted the timber decking with the revised details now showing the ground level to be regraded and backfilled adjacent to the building to allow level access to the amenity area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details now submitted have taken account of Members previous concerns in respect of the alterations to the Listed Building and the provision of timber decking and the proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable under the terms of Unitary Development Plan policies D1 (Design), B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) and B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) as well as advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 "Planning and the Historic Environment". The applications are therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation - Approval (both applications - revised plans and also subject to standard covering letter regarding barn conversions).

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

Representations

East Cowes Town Council comment as follows:

"Council rejected the application in it's present form, however, it would approve and support the building of a marina office and toilet but not the three residential units".

The objection was based on the following:

(a) Proposed height would block the harbour view for existing houses.

(b) Overdevelopment in the harbour area.

(c) Affecting the visual environment.

Highway Engineer has expressed some concern relating to five parking spaces adjacent to the eastern limb of the turning facility, requiring these to be clear of the turning area. He suggests that these spaces would be best served from the internal aisle rather than from turning area as is implied by the submitted drawings. He is also unclear as to what is proposed on the eastern half of the application site. However, he says that subject to additional information to clarify the proposed development and determination of appropriate parking standards he considers the application is acceptable, and conditions relating to parking and turning will be recommended subject to these matters being resolved.

English Nature comment as follows:

 "The above development does not impact directly on the European Site and English Nature advises that it would not have a significant effect and would not require appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations.

It will be important to protect water quality through appropriate regulation of construction of water run-off from the surrounding areas and the Environment Agency will advise in this respect. Similarly, it might be necessary to seek advice about the need for flood protection measures as part of the construction design and the need to avoid pollution of the estuary during any flooding episode".

Environment Agency comments have not been received, however, the site was the subject of considerable negotiations with the Environment Agency at the outline stage and copies of that correspondence is available. In this regard the Agency initially placed a holding objection to that outline application on the grounds of insufficient information relating to floor level, and also expressed some concern relating to the position of the block within 8 metres of the quay wall. Following extensive discussion between the developer and the Agency involving extensive correspondence a floor level was agreed as being appropriate to cater for the worst scenario and the Agency accepted the buildings position within the 8 metre distance provided a Land Drainage consent was obtained from the Agency because of the position of the block.

Evaluation

Application relates to the area of the East Cowes Marina site which currently accommodates a series of temporary buildings, some car parking/boat parking areas and stands directly to the south of the recent Brewers Fayre, public house (The Lifeboat) and the RNLI Headquarters. The overall site itself has been the subject of recent residential development. That development in terms of phase one and phase two and the Lifeboat Inn are all served directly off Clarence Road by a new estate road Britannia Way. The final phase of residential development currently in the course of construction is being carried out further to the south with that phase being served by a new residential road directly off Kingston Road as opposed to Clarence Road.

Site itself is virtually level and is currently used as a Yacht Club with a large area to the east of the temporary buildings being used for boat storage.

Most relevant planning history relates to an outline planning consent granted in March 2000 for eighteen flats in two, three and four storey blocks and six two storey houses, facilities building, public house, four marine related industrial units, car parking, use of existing access off Clarence Road for construction traffic only and substantially infilling of a basin. This consent was the subject of a number of conditions.

Other planning history is itemised as follows:

Phase 1 - Approved in September 1997 for 75 units. This development is known as Britannia Way which is accessed directly off Clarence Road.

Phase 2 - Approved in March 2000 for eighteen flats and six houses in four, three and two storey blocks accessed off extension of Britannia Way.

Detailed consent granted for the public house in August 2000 with access off further extension of Britannia Way with that consent being fully implemented and the public house being fully operational.

Phase 3 - Approved in June 2000 for residential development consisting of two, three, four storey development of 40 houses and 86 flats (126 in total), car parking with access off Kingston Road (adjacent East Cowes Cemetery). This consent is currently in the course of implementation.

There have been a number of other approvals relating to additional pontoons, extension to opening hours of public house and use of existing sales building as a future gymnasium.

Application before Members seeks detailed consent for a three storey building with a four storey feature in the form of a turreted hexagonal corner unit located on the south western corner of the overall building. Accommodation to be provided is itemised as follows:

Ground Floor

Chandlery with separate external access with main fenestration facing River Medina in a westerly direction. Entrance Hall with staircase to upper floors which runs through to reception office within the ground floor of the turreted element, with laundry room and boiler room off. Female shower facilities and toilets directly accessed externally with further office and staircase again with separate external accesses.

First Floor

Central hall off staircase providing access to communal kitchen, office and meeting room within the turreted element. Male shower facilities and toilets to be accessed off separate staircase within the eastern limb of the proposed block. Final accommodation at first floor relates to a two bedroomed flat, again to be accessed off the central hall.

Second Floor

Second floor plan accommodation indicates two flats, one being a three bedroom and one being two bedroomed, accessed off central staircase with one flat being provided with a dining room, again within the turreted block. The staircase then comes off that dining room to a third floor element which provides a living room to that three bedroomed flat.

Externally, proposal indicates pedestrian access along the western edge and southern edge of the western and southern sea wall with there being pontoons adjacent both these sea wall boundaries. The whole block is surrounded by block paved pedestrian access. Within the courtyard area which immediately abuts the proposed block there are five parking spaces with a further car parking area providing 32 spaces accessed off the cul-de-sac head of Britannia Way which Members are reminded both serves the residential development to the north and The Lifeboat Inn. Remaining area of the site will function as a boat storage area during the winter months and overspill parking during the summer months.

Feature corner element shows turret structure to be constructed in a mixture of natural stone finish with elements of glazing mainly on the ground floor and to the whole of the turreted block, with the remaining elevations at first floor and second floor being finished in natural cedar boarding. Roof to be finished in preparatory zinc roof with the hexagonal turreted block to have a similar roof finish. Balconies have been indicated at first floor and second floor wrapped around the hexagonal turreted block with a further balcony at the eastern end facing a southerly direction. Block has been appropriately fenestrated in a mixture of square and in some cases circular windows. Chandlery area is fenestrated with substantial windows which face a footpath which runs along the waterside edge.

This proposal forms the final jigsaw in the redevelopment of this overall area which is allocated for residential development and virtually envelops the RNLI premises and its curtilage. The site itself has a long history as a yachting marina although without exception most buildings have been temporary in nature with the development of the site enabling a more structured approach, funding the construction of proposal now before Members. It probably forms the most important part of the overall strategy to improve facilities for yachtsmen in East Cowes. Indeed the overall site is a good example of mixed use development with the predominant use being residential, but with the site providing other important facilities which attract economic activity by way of the public house, new pontoons and the current proposal.

The most important considerations given that the proposal follows in the main those indicated on the outline consent, is that of architectural appearance, height and mass. I note the concerns of the East Cowes Town Council, however, the location of this building has been purposely chosen because of its prominence and therefore, the applicants have decided that a focus building which stands alone and essentially makes a bold statement is the correct approach. The building, although relatively high, is no higher than the tallest of the block of flats to the north (phase two), or those to be constructed to the south (phase three).

I accept architecturally and in terms of building materials this building differs substantially from the adjoining residential and even the public house premises. Whilst recognising the subjective nature of the appropriateness of the design there is no doubt the building has taken due regard to the importance of ensuring a building which has been designed to reflect a marina type use, and which contributes to the marina and provide attractive facilities for yachtsmen.

In terms of the use of this building, it is important to appreciate that it is not intended that it shall function as a yacht club facility, but more as a marina facility offering showers, wash areas and changing rooms for use of those using the marina. In this regard, it is for use by berth holders only. It is also understood that the communal kitchen facility within the building is for general usage by office personnel with the three flats being allocated for open market residential use. The purchase money from these flats is to fund in part the works proposed.

Given the above, I am of the view that this represents a mixed use development encouraged within PPG3 providing valuable facilities which will attract further economic activity into the marina, provide a small element of employment and create a building which does justice to this prominent corner site.

With regard to other issues, proposal continues to provide a mobile cranage point both for marina yachts and more significantly the RNLI craft which is to be located adjoining the sea wall within the area of the overspill car park. In terms of the environmental issues, proposal makes reference to the insertion of a petrol interceptor complying to the requirements of the Environment Agency and the car park adjacent to the cul-de-sac has been designed to ensure that no vehicles actually reverse into the turning head and is self-contained with just a single access off that cul-de-sac head. Additional information has been received regarding floor levels which comply with the floor levels which have been agreed in respect of other buildings in this area.

Given the above, I consider the proposal to be acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that this proposal provides an acceptable solution and creates suitable rounding off of this development on this important prominent corner waterside site and therefore I recommend accordingly.

       Recommendation -      Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Plan

PART IV REPORTS – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/13655E/L            Open Plan Condition on Pan Estate, Newport

Summary

To consider what course of action to adopt in respect of fences which have been erected on Pan Estate in breach of the Open Plan Condition.

Background