REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
|
1. |
TCP/01018/G P/00079/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Registration
Date: 13/01/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Retention and
completion of work to form two dwellings; alterations to vehicular access,
formation of parking spaces Hillway Annexe,
Hillway Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355PJ |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
This application raises
a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration .
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks and 1 day to date. The
processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for
determination of planning applications because of the need for determination by
the Committee.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
This application
relates to a partially reconstructed property situated on the northern side of
Hillway Road almost opposite the junction of the lane which leads to Whitecliff
Bay Holiday Club.
The area is
semi-rural in character with a scattering of dwellings, mostly bungalows and
chalet bungalows, along the northern side of Hillway Road with open land to the
south. There are fields to the rear of the site and a smaller chalet bungalow
to the east with open land to the west and north.
Prior to work taking
place, the application property comprised of a single storey flat roofed
structure with rendered elevations and a glazed veranda across the front. It is
understood that the property was previously used as a dwelling with attached
shop/café but has recently been in residential use. There are a number of other
structures and outbuildings at the rear of the property and a forecourt/garden
area at the front.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/1018/C – Consent
granted in 1965 for conversion of the shop unit to a self contained flat
resulting in two separate units of accommodation at the property.
TCP/1018/E – Refusal
of planning permission 7 March 2003 for roof extension and conversion to two
units for the reason that the roof extension would be an intrusive addition out
of scale and character with the existing and adjoining dwelling and adversely
affect the amenities of the locality.
TCP/1018/F – Consent
granted on 1 July 2003 for conversion of existing dwelling into two chalet
bungalows to include provision of first floor accommodation and replacement
roof.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
As mentioned above,
consent was recently granted to convert the application property into two
chalet bungalows including the provision of first floor accommodation within a
newly created pitched roof. It became apparent soon after work commenced that a
large section of the building was being replaced rather than converted, and as
such did not comply with the terms of the planning consent.
Furthermore, plans
submitted to the Building Control section indicated that the approved front
facing gable element on the western side of the building is to be raised by
some 600 mm so that it meets the ridgeline of the main roof element.
Commencement on site also raised queries regarding the accuracy of the approved
street scene drawing, which would appear to have misrepresented the relative
height of the new building and the adjoining property to the east.
Consent is therefore
sought for the retention and completion of work to form two chalet style
bungalows. The revised street scene indicates that the proposed development
would sit a further 500 mm higher relative to the neighbouring property to the
east. Submitted plans also confirm that the gable feature at the western end of
the building would be raised so that it meets the ridgeline of the main roof
element. Otherwise, design and external appearance remain the same as the
approved scheme.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site is situated
outside of the development envelope as identified in the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are considered to be D1 (Standards of
Design) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundary).
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
suggests conditions should application be approved.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Bembridge Parish
Council recommend approval as, in its opinion, the proposal would represent a
significant improvement to the street scene.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters
received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as
follows:
Letter received from
a planning consultant advising that report has omitted to refer to letters of
support submitted with application, which included 7 individual letters and a
petition with 27 signatories. The
letters and petition express support on grounds that proposal would look better
than previous structure, would enhance appearance of area, and the fact that
refusal of application may lead to site being abandoned in its current
condition. Application was also
accompanied by a letter from planning consultant advising that evidence
confirmed that two dwellings previously existed, that recent planning decisions
in the vicinity are a consideration and have set a firm precedent, and
referring to planning decisions in the immediate locality. Reference is also made to the fact that new
roof height for proposed dwellings has been reduced by 250 mm.
Consultant also
refers to Policy H9 which deals with residential development outside
development boundaries and, in particular, Criteria F which allows for
infilling of small gaps in otherwise built up frontages or groups of
houses. Reference is also made to adjoining
sites in the locality, and in particular land to the east on which an
application is currently under consideration seeking a renewal for 2 dwellings,
and a renewal for a single dwelling on land immediately west of application
site. Further point made is that
permission has been given for roof extension, which is a material consideration
which should be given weight in assessing this application. Photographs are enclosed which show area of
application site and property in context of surrounding area. This area of Hillway comprises different
height buildings on adjoining plots and it is not considered appropriate to
insist that any new building conforms to height of that adjoining, and
suggesting that for roof to be further lowered would have implications for
ceiling heights within proposed dwellings.
Whilst it is agreed that a large section of property has been replaced
rather than converted, works were carried out as advised by Building
Inspector. Finally, point is made that
pair of houses is being built by a young family who live in one of them, and if
application is refused it is likely that building will not be able to be
completed and family will lose land and building. Work on building stopped when problem was brought to attention of
applicants.
8 further letters
have been received supporting proposal on grounds that the development will not
be out of keeping with the locality, is of appropriate scale, mass and design,
need for building works to be completed on site, no traffic implications, other
planning decisions in locality, minor alterations over and above previously
approved scheme, and removal of eyesore.
Further letter
received from applicant, who refers to desire to build family home, and that
throughout building works he has been in contact with different Council Officers
and has taken their advice in solving ongoing problems.
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
There are considered
to be two main issues in respect of this application. Firstly, the principle of
this development in what is considered to be open countryside for the purposes
of planning policy and secondly, scale and mass relative to the adjoining
property and the surrounding area in general.
In terms of
principle, the previous application established that two separate residential
units had existed on this site. The proposal before Members is essentially the
replacement of these flat roofed bungalows with a pair of chalet style
dwellings. This is different in policy
terms to the extensions and alterations recently permitted.
Given that the site
is outside of the development envelope, the application should be considered
against Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundary). Of
particular note is criterion A which accepts the principle of replacement
dwellings where the proposal is of a similar scale and mass to the existing. H9
also draws attention to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) which states that
development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible, enhances
the quality and character of the built environment and that applications will
be expected to respect the distinctiveness of the surrounding area as well as
being sympathetic in scale, form and detailing.
In assessing the
proposal against Policy H9, it is important that the scale and mass of the
proposed development is comparable to the building that previously existed
rather than the building recently approved. The previous building was of an
unusual design with rendered elevations and a flat roof with parapet edging. It
was a relatively low key building that had become well anchored into the street
scene and the surrounding landscape. Plans of the previous building indicate
that it measured some 3.5 metres to the top of the parapet wall. The proposal
before Members, although similar in footprint, appears substantially larger
than the previous building in terms of scale and mass by reason of a large
pitched roof (6.5 metres to ridge) including a prominent gable element at the
western end. Taking these points into consideration, I am firmly of the opinion
that the previous and proposed buildings are not comparable in terms of scale
and mass and therefore consider that this development fails criterion A of
Policy H9.
It was accepted in
the previous application that the new roof would constitute a large addition to
this property but, on balance, would not have appeared out of character or
unduly overdominant in respect of the surrounding area in general or the modest
neighbouring chalet bungalow in particular. Proposal was also considered
against Policy H7 which supports in principle extensions and alterations to
existing properties. Given works now
involved, proposal should be assessed against relevant Policy, i.e. H9.
Notwithstanding
planning consultant's comments in respect of application of Policy H9, whilst
there are two outstanding renewal applications both east and west of
application site, these have yet to be considered by Members, and application
site under consideration cannot be considered as infill, i.e. gap in otherwise
built up frontage as, in particular, land to immediate west is
undeveloped. Therefore, application
site cannot be currently considered as infilling allowed under Policy H9f. In view of extensive works that have been
carried out, which is not disputed by planning consultant, it is considered
appropriate in circumstances of case to apply criteria relevant to Policy H9a,
which requires replacement building to be of a similar scale and mass to the
existing dwelling. Preceding paragraphs
make it quite clear that alterations to roof and final finished levels has
resulted in building which falls outside remit of criteria within Policy H9a.
It became apparent,
however, once work commenced that the approved street scene did not accurately
represent the relationship with the adjoining property. This street scene
submitted with this application suggests that the proposal would in fact, sit a
further 500 mm higher than the adjoining bungalow. This increase in height
coupled with the overall scale the proposed building would, in my opinion,
render this development as being out of character with the surrounding area in
general as well as being incompatible with the mass of the adjoining dwelling.
As such, it is considered that this development also fails to comply with
Policy D1.
Taking the above
points into consideration, I have no alternative but to recommend refusal of
this application. Members will also note the retrospective nature of this
application and will see that a second recommendation has been included in
respect of further action to be taken.
In this respect, it is recommended that the applicant be invited to
submit a further application within 28 days showing the building to be retained
to eaves level but capped with a pitched roof of a more appropriate scale, mass
and design. Failure to submit an
application within 28 days would result in enforcement action being taken.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to
the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first
protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is the proportional to the
legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public
interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this
report, it is considered that the proposed development would not be of a
similar scale or mass to the previous property and as such conflicts with
Policy H9 of the UDP. Furthermore, it
is considered that the excessive scale and mass would be overdominant and
unduly overbearing in respect of the adjoining property in particular and the
surrounding area in general and therefore conflicts with Policy D1.
1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Although the Local
Planning Authority is willing to consider the replacement of existing
dwellings outside the development boundaries of defined settlements, in this
specific case the proposal is not considered to be of a similar scale or mass
to the building that previously existed and is therefore contrary to Policy
H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The proposal,
because of the scale and mass of the roof, would be an intrusive addition,
out of scale and character with the existing and adjoining dwelling and would
have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality
contrary to Policy S6 (Be of a High Standard of Design) and Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. Invite without prejudice within 28 days
a revised application showing the building to be retained to eaves level but
capped with a pitched roof of a more appropriate scale, mass and design. Failure to submit within 28 days to result
in enforcement proceedings being instigated.
Head of Planning Services