PAPER C1
SCHEDULE OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
TCP/24342 Heathwood Properties Limited, against the failure of the Council to determine an application within the prescribed period for proposed lifestyle village to include residential retirement dwellings for over 50s, ancillary hydrotherapy, medical, leisure and social facilities within Classes A1, A3, C2, C3, D1 and D2, at Whitecroft Hospital, Sandy Lane, Newport.
TCP/19052B Mr and Mrs J Butler, against refusal for detached house and formation of vehicular access and parking area, at 34 Newbarn Road, East Cowes.
TCP/17579F George Jenkins Transport Limited, against Enforcement Notice relating to laying down of hardcore and formation of trailer and lorry park, at land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown.
TCP/17579D George Jenkins Transport Limited, against refusal for formation of trailer and lorry park and alterations to vehicular access, land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown.
TCP/17579E George Jenkins Transport Limited, against refusal for formation of tractors’ yard; alterations to vehicular access, at land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown.
TCP/5045H Mr and Mrs A Williams, against refusal for detached house, detached garage block, retention and alterations to vehicular access, land between The Spinney and Little Garth, Park Road, Wootton.
TCP/14672D Mr and Mrs C G McMenamin, against refusal of outline for two detached houses (revised siting), at 24 Bank Gardens, Ryde.
A/2244A Arun Estates Limited, against refusal to display advertisement, comprising fascia sign, at 15 High Street, Bembridge.
TCP/18128L Mrs M E Wood, against refusal of outline for chalet bungalow, land between 91 and 95 Old Road, East Cowes.
TCP/18128M Mrs M E Wood, against refusal of outline for bungalow with access off Denton Gardens, Plot 2, land adjoining 9 Denton Gardens, East Cowes.
2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN
TCP/22630C Triolacan Limited, against refusal of outline for non-food retail unit with associated parking and access, at Premier Ford site, Riverway, Newport.
TCP/11415H Mr and Mrs J Paine, against Enforcement Notice relating to coach and vans, on land adjacent Long Lane Plantation, Long Lane, Newport.
3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
TCP/11117P Mr T Booth, against refusal for variation of condition on opening hours, at Flash Harry’s, Esplanade, Ryde. Hearing to take place on 13 August 2002.
4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
(a) TCP/23682A Ms L Toogood, against Enforcement Notice relating to formation of vehicle access and hardstanding, at 55 Fairlee Road, Newport.
Officer Recommendation: Enforcement action to close the access.
Committee Decision: Enforcement action to close the access - 3 October 2000.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 18 February 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the retention of the access would cause unacceptable highway danger.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Most of the other spaces in the same area are longstanding and outside the Council’s control and cannot be regarded as justification for allowing another potentially dangerous crossing of the highway footway.
∙ If the party wall with no. 53 was partially removed, joint manoeuvring for both property owners could be achieved.
∙ The present arrangement is unsatisfactory and likely to cause highway danger.
∙ Period of compliance from 28 days extended to six months to allow time for appellant to negotiate with neighbour and to make a planning application for a joint access.
.........................................................................................................................................................
(b) TCP/8215B Mr A Mapes, against refusal for demolition of store and proposed detached house, land rear of 9 High Street, with access off Benjamin Mews, Sandown.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 2 October 2001.
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 20 February 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect on the character and appearance of the area.
∙ The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nos. 4 and 5 Benjamin Mews by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The replacement of the existing workshop building with a two storey house of same style as the adjoining houses will improve the appearance of the mews.
∙ The proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with UDP Policies G4, D1 and D2 and guidance in PPG1 and PPG3.
∙ There would be no overlooking or loss of privacy to no. 4.
∙ The relationship of the bay window of the proposed dwelling with the existing bay window of no. 5 would be of close proximity, but set at right angles and because of this, very little overlooking would be possible.
∙ There would be no significant detriment to living conditions of nos. 4 and 5 by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy and the proposal complies with UDP Policy D1 and PPG1.
.........................................................................................................................................................
(c) TCP/24145 Centra Estates Limited, against refusal of outline for residential development, at former coal distribution depot adjoining Brading Station, Station Road, Brading.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 16 October 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 20 February 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside in the light of the Development Plan and other material considerations.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Development of this site would result in the loss of a buffer of vegetation and the new buildings would be prominent in the landscape.
∙ The proposed development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside.
∙ The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy G1 and there are no material considerations to justify a departure from the adopted plan.
........................................................................................................................................................
(d) TCP/4648D Mr A E Horton, against refusal for new shop front, at Regency Paints, 63 Regent Street, Shanklin.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 25 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 20 February 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The original shop front was replaced with the existing bow window design and this is out of character with and very unsympathetic to the original design of the building.
∙ The one discordant feature of the proposal is the lack of any significant stallriser which would be necessary to achieve harmony with adjoining shop fronts and to maintain an appearance of solidity at the base of this large building.
∙ Proposal is detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene.
........................................................................................................................................................
(e) TCP/21296A Mr A Barton, against refusal for construction of vehicular access and car parking bay, at 39 Newport Road, Cowes.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 31 May 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 27 February 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposed parking bay on highway safety on Newport Road.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The space available would not be sufficient to allow turning within the bay.
∙ Visibility would only be 10-12 metres in each direction which is inadequate.
∙ Proposed parking would be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy TR7b of the UDP.
∙ The many private accesses along this section of road would not meet modern standards, but do not set a precedent as each application is treated on its merits against modern standards.
.........................................................................................................................................................
(f) TCP/12010M, N and L Mr A Stockman, against:
(1) Enforcement Notice relating to tractor shed, stable/store and timber decking/pergola.
(2) Enforcement Notice relating to change of use of vineyard and winery with ancillary café to mixed use of vineyard and winery, café and associated tourism, including bed and breakfast and overspill car park.
(3) Refusal relating to retention of pergola and decking, tractor/equipment shed, resiting of storage shed, lean-to store for horse feed and equipment, use of land for keeping of horse, greenhouse, overspill car park/maintenance area, retention of alterations relocating tea room, additional residential accommodation and external alterations, at Adgestone Vineyard, Upper Road, Adgestone, Sandown.
Officer Recommendation: (1) Enforcement action to remove tractor shed, stable/store and timber decking and pergola.
(2) Enforcement action to cease the use of the site for mixed use purposes and overspill car parking.
(3) Refusal of retention of pergola and decking, tractor/equipment shed, resiting of storage sheds, lean-to store for horse feed and equipment, use of land for keeping of horse, greenhouse, overspill car park/maintenance area, retention of alterations relocating tea room, additional residential accommodation and external alterations.
Committee Decision: As above - 5 December 2000.
Appeal Decision: 20 February 2002:
(1) Dismissed in respect of Enforcement Notice relating to tractor shed and stable and store.
(2) Notice quashed in respect of mixed use purposes, pergola and decking.
(3) Split decision - Part dismissed in respect of retention of tractor/equipment shed, resiting of storage sheds, lean-to for storage of horse feed and equipment and overspill car park/maintenance area and part allowed (subject to conditions) in respect of retention of pergola and decking, use of land for keeping of horse, greenhouse, retention of internal alterations relocating tea room, retention of additional residential accommodation and external alterations.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether there has been an unacceptable intensification of the tourist use with a consequent impact on highway safety.
∙ The impact of the buildings upon the character and appearance of the AONB.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ There have been changes in the way this vineyard has been run since purchase by the appellant.
∙ Present production of wine has fallen as a result of poor weather and age of vines.
∙ More wine is now sold on the premises rather than through wholesaler.
∙
Visitors expect facilities other than basic vineyard and Council has already accepted this by permitting wine tasting and unrelated sales of goods and refreshments.
∙ Loss of small area for keeping of horse and for car park not significant in context of vineyard as a whole.
∙ Relocation within building of tea room makes sense from an operational point of view.
∙ Use of decking for additional café seating not unreasonable with a condition which prevents an increase in total seat numbers.
∙ Access is along a narrow designated ‘quiet road’ and Inspector not convinced the changes have resulted in worsening in traffic to the detriment of highway safety.
∙ The creation of additional bedroom accommodation involves no extension to the building and is acceptable provided a condition is imposed restricting its use as incidental to the rest of the dwelling.
∙ Whilst the provision of an overspill car park could be an advantage, in its present location it has an adverse impact on the landscape.
∙ The tractor and equipment shed is an unsightly intrusion into the character and appearance of the AONB in its present location.
∙ There is no objection to the greenhouse and the terrace and pergola do not have an impact on the AONB.
∙ There is not an imbalance of uses on the site which results in an unacceptable intensification of the tourist use.
Costs application by appellant against IWC
Basis of application:
The Local Planning Authority produced no evidence to substantiate its allegation for a change of use; permission has already been granted for the café use; bed and breakfast is ancillary to main approved use; vineyard has long been advertised as a tourist site.
Council’s response:
The planning consents have always sought to contain the scale of the development and appellant has taken the use beyond the scope of the conditions; the Highways Authority has consistently recommended refusal on likely traffic impact; appellant has widely advertised his intentions; there has been an incremental change, shifting the balance of activities to beyond those of an ancillary nature; Council undertook reasonable investigations.
Inspector’s decision:
Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs are only awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and caused the other party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily. One notice was unclear and a nullity, but the planning issues involved were raised by the refusal of planning permission and had to be dealt with in any event. No unreasonable behaviour has been demonstrated by the Council and an award of costs is not justified.
.........................................................................................................................................................
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.