PAPER D

Committee :    DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date :              2 APRIL 2002

Title :              TCP/49978/PO1345/98 - SPLIT LEVEL DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE, LAND BETWEEN 5 & 7 LEESON ROAD, VENTNOR

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

To consider a request from English Nature to consider carefully the possibility of revoking the abovementioned extant conditional planning permission, which was granted in August 1999 and remains valid until the 2^nd August 2004. The basis of the request is that the site is within an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and English Nature did not have the opportunity to comment when the application was under consideration.

BACKGROUND

There was previously a valid approval on this site between 1980 and 1991. When the above mentioned application was under consideration in 1999, the principal new issue which arose was matters relating to land stability. The Council understood the site to be outside the area designated as a SSSI. Members accepted the officers’ recommendation to grant conditional planning permission when the matter was considered by the former Planning and Countryside Committee at a meeting held on 3^rd August 1999. Much of the post decision and correspondence relates to the question of land stability.

Very recently, a letter was received from English Nature expressing their concern about the handling of this particular case and the possible effects on the important nature conservation interests in the immediate vicinity as a result of the possible development of this site. The letter from English Nature, attached to this report as an appendix, states that under Article 10 (u) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedures) Order 1995, there is a requirement to consult with them before granting planning permission for development in or likely to affect a SSSI.

English Nature consider that the development could result in a significant impact on the SSSI due to loss of the chalk scrub which they believe is an unacceptable situation, and since the planning permission, in their words, ‘appears to be legally valid’, the only way to prevent implementation is for the Council to revoke the permission.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 97 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that if it appears to a Local Planning Authority that it is expedient to revoke any permission to develop land granted on an application, the Authority may by order revoke the permission to such an extent as they consider expedient.

Planning permission vests development rights in the land, and the Local Planning Authority have no power simply to withdraw a permission unilaterally. The exercise of this power is subject to liability to pay compensation under Section 107 in respect of the expenditure rendered abortive by the order and for any other loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation of the permission.

On the assumption that a revocation order would be opposed, the principals of assessment of compensation fall under two main headings :-

1.        Abortive Expenditure - this includes the preparation of plans for the purposes of any work or any other similar preparatory matters.

2.        Other loss or damage directly attributable to the revocation. Under this head there is a subsumed a claim in respect in any depreciation in the value of the claimants interest in the land.

Members will have their own interpretation or view of this aspect in terms of likely costs. If necessary, the Planning Solicitor will be able to appraise Members of the constituent parts that go together in a calculation of likely compensation but if Members require any more detailed information in the form of a reasonably accurate assessment of likely costs it will be necessary to seek views from the Property Services Manager.

OPTIONS

1.        That English Nature should be advised that on any future applications on this site they will be given the opportunity to comment.

2.        That English Nature be advised that procedures have been, or are in the process of being reviewed, to ensure that they are consulted in all relevant cases.

3.        That English Nature be advised that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, accedes to their request and will revoke the permission.

4.        That English Nature be advised that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, declines the request and refuses to revoke the permission.

CONCLUSIONS

This matter relates to a very small part of a large area of land that is designated as SSSI. The land in question was not included within the original designation. The former County Council and the former South Wight Borough Council received notification in late January 1987 of several extensions to the SSSI, one of which incorporated 5 Leeson Road, its curtilage and the application site; this was received by the former Planning Unit, but the confirmation of the designation, which occurred, we now know, nine months later, was never received by the former Planning Unit. Consequently, the principal reference point known as the ‘Constraints Map’ was not updated, at that time, and when the most recent application was registered, the Case Officer was unaware that the site was within the SSSI since he was of the view that there had been no change in circumstances and on the earlier applications the site was outside the SSSI. As a consequence of this assumption there was not an initial consultation with English Nature.

The whole issue has been the subject of discussions with the relevant Policy Officer and the Ecology Officer. The latter does not necessarily maintain or support the view of English Nature in its entirety and questions as to whether the development of this site will have a significant effect on the designated SSSI. The Ecology Officer comments in the following terms:

“The Ventnor Downs SSSI boundary was extended in 1987. The boundary revisions included 5 Leeson Road and its curtilage, whilst an area of ecologically interesting holm oak woodland and chalk-scrub behind 7 Leeson Road was excluded. The justification for these particular changes seems odd to say the least. At that time the land in question was within the curtilage of 5 Leeson Road.

This SSSI was included within the Isle of Wight Downs Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) put forward to the Government under the Regulations in 1995. Consequently, the site in question technically falls not only within a SSSI but also within a European site and the Planning Authority is obliged to review any unimplemented consents under the regulations. We have reached an agreement with English Nature that the extant permission will not have a significant effect on the European site and therefore an Appropriate Assessment will not be required in this instance.

Unitary Development Plan Policy C10 says that development will not be permitted if it would be likely to adversely effect, directly or indirectly a site of special scientific interest. The development of this small part of the site would result in irreversible damage, but I consider that the impact of the extant permission upon the interest features would be minimal.”

In this particular instance, it is important that Members give appropriate weight to the comments of the Ecology Officer and also give due regard to the fact that the extant permission, to date, has not been implemented. There have been negotiations about alternative proposals which may or may not involve an amended design for the individual unit, possible re-siting and possible reduction in the degree of engineering works in terms of pedestrian/vehicular access to the premises, which, in my view, would require a new application. If the applicant/agent did pursue this course of action, English Nature would have the opportunity to comment on the application and it may be possible to negotiate a solution which would have less impact on the SSSI, allowing Members, if they wish to support the application, to impose appropriate conditions designed to protect the natural character of the area. Members will appreciate that a re-siting of the proposed dwelling will open up a fresh negotiating issue in terms of voluntary revocation, without compensation, of the extant permission in favour of permission being granted for an amended scheme.

This matter has been given particularly careful consideration and procedures using the benefits of GIS are presently being put into place to ensure that there are no similar occurrences in the near future. I do not, however, believe that there is sufficient justification in this particular case for revocation of the permission and recommend accordingly.

Contact Point: Chris Hougham, DC Manager ☎: 4565

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services