PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF 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 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 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 ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, 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 PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

2 SEPTEMBER 2003

1.	TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW	Ryde	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/04923/J P/01315/03 Esplanade Garage Ryde, 9-11 George Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332EB	Ryde	Conditional Approval
3.	CAC/04923/K P/01381/03 Esplanade Garage Ryde, 9-11 George Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332EB	Ryde	Conditional Approval
4.	TCP/09177/A P/01538/02 Bovy's Dream, High Street, Wroxall, Ventnor, PO383BZ	Wroxall	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/10633/S P/01145/03 Springfield Court, Springvale Road, Seaview, PO34	Seaview	Refusal
6.	TCP/16796/T P/01194/03 Trucast Ltd, Marlborough Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331AD	Ryde	Conditional Approval
7.	TCPL/22146/M P/01294/03 Golden Hill Fort, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409TF	Freshwater	Conditional Approval
8.	LBC/22146/N P/01304/03 Golden Hill Fort, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409TF	Freshwater	Conditional Approval
9.	TCP/25522/A P/01487/03 9 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA	Freshwater	Refusal
10.	TCP/25634 P/01125/03 8 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA	Freshwater	Refusal
11.	TCP/25640 P/01150/03 10 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA	Freshwater	Refusal
12.	TCP/25757 P/01486/03 11 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA	Freshwater	Refusal

TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde South West

Registration Date: 16/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Toogood Plastics

Demolition of warehouse and dwelling; construction of 9 dwellings

1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject to a number of representations from local residents and it is considered Committee determination is appropriate.

Members will recall that this application was considered at the meeting held on 22 July 2003. At this meeting Members resolved to defer consideration to allow opportunity to negotiate improved design, particularly scale and mass of building in respect of the three storey element and to move building back in line with the building line of street and take into account consideration of scale of adjoining properties. Members also requested that opportunity is taken to explore possibility of on site parking provision and requirement for open space.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application has taken fifteen weeks to process and is a minor application. It has taken more than eight weeks because of the need to take the application to Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former milk depot that was recently used as storage and distribution unit for plastic building components which is situated on eastern side of West Street immediately north east of junction with Milligan Road. The site comprises mainly two storey warehouse building and some residential accommodation covering virtually entire site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A certificate of lawful use was granted in October 1997 for use of former milk processing depot for storage and distribution of plastic building components with ancillary retailing.

Consent granted in May 1998 for conversion of part of building to form dwelling unit.

Further application seeking consent for alterations and change of use of loft/storage area to form flat approved February 2000.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application seeks detailed consent for demolition of warehouse, clearance of site and construction of nine dwellings.

Plans show L shaped building, having double road frontage on to both Milligan Road and West Street. The building itself would be constructed hard to edge of pavement. The development will comprise six two-bedroom terraced units with three single bedroom flatted units immediately adjacent the road junction.

The residential units would be two-storey with flatted corner unit comprising additional storey at road junction. Externally building would comprise buff and red brickwork underneath natural slate roof. No off street parking is provided.

Following deferral, agent has submitted supporting letter which advises that this application is part of overall business strategy of Toogood Plastics. Development of this site will enable relocation of business to Ryde Business Park at Nicholson Road. Application is in accordance with current policies regarding development of brownfield sites and current car parking requirements in urban areas. A fewer number of dwellings would devalue the application site and would result in Toogood Plastics not being able to redevelop and relocate, therefore missing an opportunity to create additional employment. They request that originally submitted application be presented to Committee for determination.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S1 New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas

G1 Development Envelopes

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development Within Site

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that as proposal is located within zone 2, no on site parking is acceptable in policy terms.

Comments of Contaminated Land Officer are awaited.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Twelve letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

The development provides no off street parking and will therefore increase on street traffic pressure.

Implications for highway safety in locality.

Loss of sunlight and privacy.

Increased traffic movement associated with new development.

Loss of industrial floor space which is capable of being served by local workforce.

Overdevelopment of site.

No play space for children.

Out of keeping (scale) with locality.

Crime and disorder implications.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Agent has been advised of Members' views expressed at meeting held on 22 July, nevertheless he wishes application to be determined as originally submitted and therefore previous planning comments are reported for Members' reconsideration.

Given the site's location there is no objection in principle to removal of this non-conforming commercial use which itself has been a generator of traffic in the locality and its replacement with residential accommodation.

In scale and mass terms the proposal is not considered inappropriate reflecting two-storey scale of development in locality and whilst three-storey element is proposed on the corner this provides relief to the elevational detail and it is considered successfully turns corner from West Street into Milligan Road. Whilst proposal involves building to edge of pavement, this feature is not in itself unusual characteristic in locality and accordingly no issue is raised on this particular point.

In terms of impact on adjoining residents it is considered that main rearward facing (eastern) windows to main block are sufficient distance (9 metres) to common boundary to minimise any adverse impact from overlooking or loss of privacy. Also given distances to common boundaries, proposal, it is felt, will not over dominate to unacceptable extent surrounding residents. The point should be made that existing warehouse building covers majority of site and proposal in building towards road frontage will open up rear of site with loss of building and provision of individual garden spaces. It is felt that this will substantially improve outlook for surrounding residents given size and type of structure currently on site.

With regards to lack of off street parking, in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policy site is located within Zone 2 where adopted standards do not necessarily require any off-street parking provision to be made. Therefore no sustainable objection can be raised with regard to proposals lack of off-street parking. Indeed there are recent examples of development approved in locality which comply with policy in providing no parking facilities. Prospective occupiers will be aware of this situation and make informed choices with regards to practicality of car ownership. As the proposal does not provide any off-street parking no direct comment can be made as to highway safety matters directly attributable to this particular development.

In view of the above comments I do not consider there is any reasonable planning objection to development of this site which represents windfall site in terms of providing additional residential accommodation.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant 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 these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that development will not detract from character of locality or have unacceptable impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Class A of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The window openings fronting both Milligan Road and West Street shall be constructed and designed in such a manner that they do not obstruct, overhang the pavement, or open outwards. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/04923/J P/01315/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 30/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Esplanade Ltd

Demolition of car hire office & outbuildings; construction of 2/3 storey building of 14 flats; alterations to vehicular access; parking & landscaping (revised scheme)

Esplanade Garage Ryde, 9-11 George Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332EB

See joint report on application number CAC/04923/K (Item No. 3)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development hereby approved is commenced, detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Planning Authority. Such drawings to show the construction of window surrounds, horizontal banding, eave and barge board details of the proposed buildings. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the proposed building and the appearance of the designated Conservation Area and in compliance of policies B6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The doors and door/window frames of the buildings hereby approved shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the proposed building and the appearance of the designated Conservation Area and in compliance of policies B6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected including both Castle Street and George Street frontages. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Conditions as required by Highway Engineer

CAC/04923/K P/01381/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 09/07/2003 - Conservation Area Consent

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Esplanade Ltd

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of car hire office & outbuildings

Esplanade Garage Ryde, 9-11 George Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332EB

This report also relates to application no. TCP/04923/J (item no. 2)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is a major submission involving development within a Conservation Area where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The processing of this application has taken ten weeks to date which is within the thirteen week performance target for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site currently comprises offices and workshop buildings together with open courtyard area situated immediately northwest of junction of Castle Street with George Street. Site slopes to north and has benefit of vehicular access onto George Street and some limited building masses on both Castle Street and George Street frontages.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent granted in 1985 for fifteen flats in three storeys over ground floor car parking.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent for demolition of existing buildings on site and their replacement with two and three storey residential development which in building form wraps round the double road frontage and with modification and repositioning of existing access onto George Street allows for rear courtyard parking and turning area.

In terms of mass, majority of proposed building on Castle Street frontage is two storey with more prominent three storey development fronting George Street which includes covered access way. Scheme offers mix of housing types and styles incorporating both brick and smooth render externally finished dwelling units, some of which having benefit of bay window features.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site lies within Ryde Conservation Area, however, whilst locality is characterised by numerous Listed buildings, application site itself is devoid of such features.

Within Unitary Development Plan site is allocated for housing purposes. Relevant text advises that site has had benefit of outline approval in 1985.

Relevant UDP policies are considered to be as follows:

G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages)

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development)

D1 (Standards of Design)

D2 (Standards for Developments Within the Site)

B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas)

B7 (Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas)

H4 (Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements)

H6 (High Density Residential Development)

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Initial comments of Highway Engineer was to recommend refusal of application on grounds of unsatisfactory access due to inadequate width. Revised plans have been submitted overcoming this objection and any further comments of Highway Engineer will be reported at meeting.

Architects Panel have viewed plans and their comments are summarised as follows:

a Panel considered drawings present interesting traditional design but are of opinion that overall detailing use of materials would be particularly important in this location.

b Concern was expressed that form of development did not match existing street pattern which followed back line of pavement. This would result in number of odd shaped spaces adjacent street.

c Panel commented that part of scheme did not appear sufficiently urban when compared with other buildings in immediate vicinity with some elements of scheme appearing out of context in this respect.

d Corner of site forming junction with George Street and Castle Street was considered particularly weak and did not reflect character of adjacent development which comprised prominent buildings built right up to corners.

e Boundary treatment would be important as would actual detailing of buildings.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received raising concern in respect of mass of buildings and potential for overshadowing of adjoining properties. Concern is also raised concerning loss of light and potential impact of proposed development, particularly given restricted width of Castle Street itself. Criticism is also expressed in respect of overdevelopment of site.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

There is no objection in principle to redevelopment of this brownfield site located within defined settlement boundary. Main considerations relate to detailed design issues and their impact on both street scene and surrounding residential occupiers.

Scale and mass of buildings are considered appropriate for this location and proposal will help maintain character of Castle Street which comprises relatively tall buildings built on or close to edge of pavement within street which is itself relatively narrow. Proposal does turn corner with three storey development and continues this theme down George Street while introducing arched driveway centrally located on this elevation.

Difference in finishes do to some extent reflect mixed finishes used in locality and whilst comments of Architects Panel are appreciated in respect of footprint of buildings not been built right up to edge of pavement, it is not considered that this feature in itself represents adverse feature, as with appropriate boundary treatment properties can have benefit of individual front garden areas, subject to approval of subsequent details.

Proposal provides opportunity to introduce individual distinctive piece of townscape into this area of Ryde, which, whilst reflecting scale and character of development in locality, provides modern development reflecting main features of traditional design in this part of Conservation Area. Any approval can be subject to appropriate condition requiring further detailed drawings to ensure approved detailing respects Conservation Area character. This would obviously require installation of timber windows and appropriate surrounds and requirement for appropriate boundary treatment.

Proposal is seen as complying with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in meeting requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. Furthermore, scale of development proposed and distances to adjoining development, particularly properties fronting Castle Street, allow for sufficient distances to ensure no undue loss of amenity is caused to surrounding residential occupiers.

In terms of Conservation Area consent, demolition of existing buildings on site raise no particular issue, many of which relate to existing industrial buildings and no objection is raised on this issue particularly as the redevelopment proposal is considered appropriate.

Whilst proposal makes provision for nine off-street parking spaces in accordance with reduces parking guidelines, proposal does attract Transport Infrastructure Payment at a rate of £750 per residential unit. I am of the view that proposal provides opportunity to appropriately develop brownfield site located within Conservation Area and I recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that proposed redevelopment represents an acceptable form of building which will not have an excessive impact on neighbouring properties and has fully addressed the need to both preserve and enhance Ryde Conservation Area. Development is considered to be of appropriate height, mass and architectural appearance and whilst development of this scale does not attract affordable housing provision, proposal incorporating mixed single and two bedroom flatted development provides accommodation in this location which meets greatest demand.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Both applications)

(Subject to Section 106 Planning Obligation requiring Transport Infrastructure Payment of £10,500 (£750 x 14) )

Conditions/Reasons:

The demolition authorised by this consent shall not be commenced until a binding contract for carrying out works of redevelopment of the site is made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.

Reason: In order to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with Policies B1, B2, B4, B6 and D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/09177/A P/01538/02 Parish/Name: Wroxall Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 03/09/2002 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Gibbons

Outline for a terrace of 4 dwellings & new vehicular access, (readvertised application)

Bovy's Dream, High Street, Wroxall, Ventnor, PO383BZ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and there are a number of matters to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is an application which was submitted in August of last year and negotiations have taken place in order to achieve a greater density and a better site layout. Determination at this meeting will mean the application has taken 58 weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This site has an area of approximately 0.2 hectares, is of irregular shape and is located on the bend opposite the Four Seasons public house at the junction with High Street and Clarence Road at Wroxall. It has a depth of approximately 70 metres, a frontage of nearly 60 metres and, in the main, is elevated somewhat above road level. There is presently a single bungalow on the site and the adjoining, side boundaries abut residential properties, to the north properties which face West Street, whilst to the south a single, two-storey residential property set in a large site. The road in front of the property rises steeply to the south, approximately 5 metres across its frontage, to the west are other residential properties fronting Mountfield Road.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline consent sought for a terrace of four dwellings with a vehicular access located in the southern part of the frontage. Plans show the terrace to be set lengthwise in the site with a south westerly aspect with the access drive running to a garage and parking area towards the rear of the site. No details of the buildings have been submitted and a revised plan shows a rearrangement in the access point to set it away from the side boundary thus improving visibility.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent granted for three bungalows in July 1992.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Within designated development envelope for Wroxall as shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Subject to PPG3 wherein advice is given on best use of urban land. Site is not within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty nor Conservation Area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer prefers the site to be accessed from the southern side, requiring that the first twenty metres of the drive should be wider to prevent vehicles coming into conflict on its bends but with a section of the site to the north of the access being reduced in level to improve visibility would allow for a visibility splay to be achieved.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wroxall Parish Council recommend approval but still raise concern in respect of traffic hazards caused by the creation of a new access.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters of objection from neighbours and local residents on grounds of loss of privacy, generation of noise, loss of habitats, inadequate detail, dangerous access, concerns over drainage and boundary treatments, loss of light and pollution.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This site is located within the development envelope and surrounded by residential property. Therefore, in principle, there is no objection to the use of the site for the more intensive residential use. Three bungalows have been approved on this site in the past and, at the suggestion of this office, the applicant revised the application to increase the number of dwellings by one, creating a terrace of properties.

On the submitted outline form the site layout shows how the site could be developed with a terrace "end on" to the highway, a shared vehicular access to the car parking and turning area towards the rear of the site.

Originally, in the previous approval, it was intended to access the site at the northernmost part of the frontage but, in practical terms, this would mean that massive engineering operation would need to be undertaken to achieve a satisfactory gradient and visibility would still be limited.

The main determining factor in this instance is that of access. It was intended to determine this application under the delegated procedure but the local Member, whilst supporting the development in principle, requires that highway improvements including provision of footpaths, bus stop and resiting of other street furniture be carried out before a development commences on this site. It has been suggested that, before development commences on this site a new footpath link should be provided on the western side of Clarence Road linking the existing provisions where there is now none. As the situation exists, this provision could only be made by the acquisition of a sliver of land presently forming the front gardens of those properties on the western side of Clarence Road, a distance of about 70 metres. However, the loss of this part of the front gardens of those properties would result in inadequate depth of frontage to allow some properties to retain their parking spaces.

On the eastern side of Clarence Road the front part of a site which has recently been developed for a single dwelling, has been retained for highway improvements. This would involve the realignment of the highway and the possible provision of a footpath, within the present carriageway thus linking the two existing footways.

It is not clear at this time, when such an improvement is likely to be carried out and although it has been suggested that such work would need to be done before the current proposal is implemented, it is pointed out to Members that the section of footway to be provided is 45 metres plus to the south of the site and that a footway already exists along the whole frontage of the application site. It therefore seems unreasonable to delay the development of this site pending the road improvement described above is carried out, especially as there is no indication of when such an improvement may occur. Under the circumstances I consider it unreasonable to delay development for those reasons stated above and recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

This is a site within the development envelope and within an area of residential properties, a site which has a history of residential approvals. Due to the extreme build differences and lack of visibility, access is felt to be better at the southern end of the frontage where gradients would be minimal and having given due consideration and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, it is felt that this infill site of increased density is consistent with UDP policy and PPG3.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of reserved matters - A03
4	The access to the site shall be formed in accordance with the specification submitted as part of the application for approval of reserved matters and the access shall be located in the southern end of the frontage. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Drainage - G07
6	Prior to commencement/occupation/completion of the development hereby approved and notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, the level of the land hatched green on the approved drawing shall be lowered so that the land and any things on it shall not be more than one metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be subsequently kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The access road shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before (the use hereby permitted is commenced) (before the building(s) is/are occupied) (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/10633/S P/01145/03 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 09/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Captiva Estates Ltd

3 storey block of 14 flats & a 2 storey terrace of 6 houses; detached garage block & associated works, (revised scheme)

Springfield Court, Springvale Road, Seaview, PO34

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which raises important planning issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application and will have taken twelve weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former Springfield Court (now demolished) and associated grounds situated south of Springvale Road behind residential properties fronting both Springvale Road itself and Oakhill Road to east. Site until recently contained remains of former building, which was substantially damaged by fire, served by a tarmac road from Springvale Road which runs along tree lined driveway up to main premises. Site is heavily treed and forms remnants of former landscaped gardens which fronted and surrounded main building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10633L, outline for forty two flats, refused (1989).

TCP/10633M, outline for block of twenty four flats, approved subject to Legal Agreement restricting further development on site and ensuring future maintenance of grounds. Legal Agreement not entered into and as a result a decision notice not formally issued.

TCP/10633N, outline for twenty five flats, approved subject to Legal Agreement, however, as with the previous scheme Legal Agreement not entered into and application subsequently treated as withdrawn.

TCP/10633P, outline for nine apartments and four houses, approved subject to a Planning Obligation to ensure reinstatement and future maintenance of grounds. Legal Agreement entered into and decision notice issued August 2001.

TCP/10633R, planning consent granted for demolition of existing building and construction of two/four storey development comprising fourteen flats and four houses. Legal agreements requiring contribution towards affordable housing and landscape management plan entered into and decision notice issued July 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks full detailed consent for construction of part three (not including roof accommodation) and part two storey block comprising fourteen apartments and terrace of six houses together with construction of detached garage block.

When comparing recent approval on this site current proposal shows increase in footprint rear (south) of main approved block which accommodates further two terraced residential units. This increase in length totals approximately some 13 metres with maximum depth of previously approved scheme of 54 metres increasing to 68 metres. In terms of design concept and detailing proposal is identical to that submitted with previous scheme.

Other alterations involve minor increase in garage block providing accommodation for bin store and plant room.

As the previous scheme, proposal seeks to refurbish existing tennis courts and swimming pool and provide groundsman's stores building.

Access arrangements onto Springvale Road are identical to previous scheme.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

· PPG3 (Housing), particularly with reference to affordable housing provision.

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

· The following Development Plan policies are considered applicable:

G1 (Development Envelopes).

G2 (Consolidation Outside Development Envelopes).

G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements).

D1 (Standards of Design).

C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodlands).

H1 (New Development Within Main Island Towns).

H9 (Outside Development Boundaries).

H14 (Locally Affordable Housing).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Environment Agency raise no objection in principle.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at time of preparing report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

Increased footprint of building from that previously approved.

Impact on existing trees on site.

Submission of incremental applications on this site.

Impact of traffic and implications for highway safety.

One letter of support has been received with writer of opinion that application will enhance overall proposal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

As with the previous schemes on this site, main planning considerations relate to Development Plan policy, previous decisions and specific history on this particular site.

In policy terms site lies outside defined development envelope boundaries and is therefore countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy G5 excludes new residential development outside such defined settlements, however, Policy H9 does allow for replacement buildings of similar scale and mass. Existence of building on site was therefore material consideration in determination of earlier scheme, however, Members will appreciate that building has been totally demolished and removed from site since previous decision made on this site.

Current proposal represents second revision to originally approved scheme which comprised nine apartments and four houses. Original scheme approved in August 2001 showed main three storey element comprising nine apartments with four terraced houses to the rear which had maximum total length of some 54.5 metres.

Subsequent submission seeking approval for fourteen flats and four houses considered by Members at their meeting held on 8 October 2002 retained original footprint but incorporated more intensive development with the addition of five further apartments incorporating accommodation in roof.

Current proposal seeks to maintain approved two and four storey development and to extend rear terrace with further two houses. As previously mentioned this increases depth of proposal by approximately 13 metres and clearly falls outside footprint of existing hotel premises on which building replaces.

Whilst Members will appreciate that advice contained within PPG7 does, in exceptional circumstances, allow for isolated development in countryside if that development is of highest quality and is significant in terms of its architectural and landscape design and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings, due regard should also be given to relevant UDP policy (H9) which does allow for residential development outside development boundaries if that involves replacement of similar scale and mass to existing dwelling/property.

Major justification for development on this site was existence of significant part of former hotel and staff accommodation block and fact that previous submissions sought to build on approximately the same footprint which justified support of scheme within location which would not normally be considered appropriate for new development.

Given this consideration it is felt that current proposal seeks approval for further incremental development outside footprint of former building and as such represents a step too far in terms of applying UDP policy and following guidance within PPG7.

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 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 the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that the proposed residential development resulting in development outside the footprint of the former hotel cannot be supported in terms of Policy H9 of the UDP. Clearly proposal seeks larger building, certainly in terms of footprint, and perhaps in terms of height than former building on site and therefore cannot be supported by relevant policy which allows exceptionally for development in countryside locations.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal represents development which is dissimilar in scale, mass and footprint to the previous building on site and is therefore considered to be contrary to the intentions of Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The site is outside the designated development boundary and the proposal which comprises an undesirable intensification and consolidation of development and would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/16796/T P/01194/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns East

Registration Date: 18/06/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Trucast Ltd

Outline for residential development ; alterations to vehicular access

Trucast Ltd, Marlborough Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331AD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is a major submission where there are a number of planning issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This major submission has taken eleven weeks to process.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to site of just over one hectare which is grassed area situated immediately west of existing industrial premises operated by Trucast.

Site has benefit of landscape bund which runs along western boundary of site immediately rear of properties fronting Marlborough Road and additionally has single storey L-shaped former office building which fronts existing access road. This office floor space has been replaced to rear (east) of site.

Application site would be served by private access road which also serves existing industrial complex.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent issued on this site for residential development in June 1962.

In 1990 outline planning consent granted covering majority of current application site for single storey industrial building for manufacture of ceramic moulds for metal castings. Submitted plans indicated intensive landscaping and planting along western boundary of site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from means of access.

Application seeks consent in principle for development of this site for residential purposes.

Illustrative plan submitted with proposal indicates cul-de-sac access serving some seventy- one dwellings with a mix of terraced and blocks of maisonettes/flats.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site unallocated for any specific purpose within adopted UDP.

Following policies of UDP are considered relevant in this instance:

S2 - Brownfield Sites

G1 - Development Envelopes

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

H1 - Major New Residential Developments to be Located Within Main Island Towns

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 - Infill Development

E3 - Resist Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Environmental Health Officer has no objection in principle to this outline development subject to imposition of appropriate conditions to protect amenity of future residential occupiers from operations of adjoining factory. Conditions suggested require detailed approval of scheme for protecting proposed residential development from noise generated within adjoining industrial complex and supervision by competent person.

Contaminated Land Officer also recommends condition requiring desk-top study to assess extent (if any) of contamination, site investigation report and remediation scheme if required.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Fifteen letters of objection have been received. Objections are summarised as follows:

Land designated for industrial use.

Problems associated with additional traffic generation.

Increased noise and danger, particularly to highway users.

Additional demands on infrastructure and services.

Potential loss of trees.

Impact on wildlife.

Noise from adjoining indoor shooting range.

No provision for open space.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Whilst not allocated for any specific use within adopted UDP this brownfield site represents windfall site in providing opportunity for residential development within defined settlement boundary due regard must be given to other relevant policies of the UDP, particularly Policy E3 which seeks to protect existing employment land (whether allocated or not) from being lost to non-employment use. The policy does, however, allow for such change of use where loss of site will not prejudice ability of area to meet local employment needs and where proposal is for overall development of the site and involves an acceptable mix of uses.

In view of requirements of Policy E3 the principle of residential development of this site is acceptable provided such loss of land does not prejudice long term retention of adjoining industrial operator.

On this particular point supporting letter has been submitted with application from the industrial operator and is attached as an appendix to this report. Briefly, applicant advises that recently works have been carried out to modernise factory which involved not just rationalisation and streamlining operations and manufacture and elimination of waste but total review of production and full implications of process on local environment. Recent success in obtaining grant money has protected some 226 jobs and which, at current time, totals some 290 employees. The land is surplus to requirements now and in known future plans of operator, and sale proceeds would release monies to company helping to ensure further investment. Development of business through improved operations within core sites would increase employment opportunities as they progress.

It should be noted from Relevant History section that notwithstanding residential development approved in 1962 subsequent consent for additional build on this site granted outline consent in 1990 has not been progressed.

Given company statement and reorganisation of business within existing core of site Members may consider that development of application site will not prejudice further development/growth on this site and would help long term profitability of existing operator.

If this view is accepted then site does indeed represent windfall opportunity to provide additional housing within established settlement boundary and more detailed matters need to be considered at this stage.

Firstly, proximity of residential property to existing industrial user needs to be addressed. On this particular point Environmental Health Officer has no objection in principle to development subject to detailed scheme being submitted to ensure protection of proposed residential development from noise from plant and machinery operated by adjoining industrial operator. He also requires works to be completed prior to any part of the noise sensitive development being occupied and compliance monitored by a competent person. Such a scheme and its requirements will have obvious implications for siting of residential units and overall density of development of site.

With regards access which is to be considered at this stage, plans indicate existing access road to be upgraded to 6.1 metres wide with 1.8 metres wide footpath and existing bell mouth to be widened. Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions being imposed on any consent and therefore no sustainable objection can be raised on this particular issue.

Finally I am satisfied that residential development of this site can occur without undue adverse impact on adjoining occupiers.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

It is not considered that proposal seeking construction of residential units on land comprising curtilage of industrial premises will prejudice long term employment potential of operator and would allow provision of additional residential units in location which meets guidance contained within PPG's 3 and 13 representing sustainable location for new residential development whilst complying with UDP policies. Obviously, proposal of this scale will be expected to provide affordable housing and meet appropriate infrastructure costs accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Subject to Section 106 Agreement covering:

· provision of affordable housing of 20% of the units sold at half price to a registered social landlord.

· financial contribution in respect of provision of educational facilities.

· the provision of open space and long term maintenance in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Council to NPFA (National Playing Field Association) standards.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within this Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul water and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exits to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload existing systems. If the calculations of the surface water drainage proposal require a surface water regulation system, such system shall be fully implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme, with the scheme incorporating the principles of sustainable drainage, including a maintenance programme and establishing ownership in the future. Such agreed details shall be implemented before the first unit of accommodation is occupied. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
6	Timing of occupation - J10
7	Provision of turning area - K40
8	Visibility splays of x = 4.5m and y = 90m dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Development shall not begin until details of the proposed improvements to the junction between the existing service road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees and shrubs, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) a desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 & 3 and BS10175:2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice", and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part 11A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
13	The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report. Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
14	Construction work shall not begin until a scheme for protecting the proposed residential development as shown on the plan (attached to and forming part of this decision notice) from noise from the plant and machinery operated by industry on adjacent site, as shown on the attached plan for information only, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; all works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the noise sensitive development is occupied. The scheme shall include proposals for ensuring that the guideline levels set out in British Standard 8233 1999 for residential accommodation are complied with, that all necessary works are supervised by a competent persons (A competent person may be contacted through "The Association of Noise Consultants" 6 Trap Road Guilden Morden Nr Royston Herts SG8 0JE telephone 01763 852958) and that upon completion of all works, testing is carried out and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority to verify the scheme's effectiveness. The works and scheme shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. No alterations to the structure, roof, doors, windows or external facades of the development shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, to the future occupiers of the development from noise emissions from neighbouring industrial use, in accordance with Policy P5 (Reducing Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCPL/22146/M P/01294/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 01/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: c/o Portsmouth Business Consultants

Conversion of premises to form 17 town houses and 1 flat

Golden Hill Fort, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409TF

See joint report on application no. TCP/22146N (item no. 8)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to reduce the risk of the fort deteriorating further in accordance with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	No work shall commence on site until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used in the renovation/repair of the Fort have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Prior to any work commencing on site, a detailed schedule of original internal features together with details of measures to be implemented for their retention shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing, including any central feature or artwork within the inner courtyard, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Any soil excavated from within the dry moat in connection with the formation of the parking and landscaping of the area shall not be disposed of within the area identified in pink on the submitted plans. The materials shall be removed from site prior to occupation of any of the dwellings within the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and to protect the appearance and character, appearance and setting of the Listed Building and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design), B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) and B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	The replacement of any windows, doors and window/door frames shall be carried out in timber and in a style to match the original windows, doors and window/door frames and in a style to reflect the particular architectural merit of the building and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to any work commencing on site, details of the design, appearance and location of any external lighting and close circuit television cameras shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the lighting and close circuit television camera shall be installed/erected and thereafter retained and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details and no further such equipment shall be installed/erected without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to work commencing on site a scheme for the provision of parking within the dry moat shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans such scheme shall make provision for the parking of a maximum of 27 cars and shall include details of the surface finish and drainage to the area. Prior to occupation of any of the flats, the parking areas shall be provided and thereafter maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision and that such provision does not detract from the character and appearance of the Fort, in accordance with policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until provision has been made within the site for the secure and covered parking of a minimum of one bicycle for each dwelling. Such provision shall be made and thereafter retained in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	None of the dwellings within the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the access road to the site from the publicly maintainable highway has been repaired and surfaced in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of access to the development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	Prior to work commencing on site a scheme for the provision of traffic calming within the tunnelled access to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall incorporate appropriate surface treatment to the roadway in order to restrict vehicle speeds and lighting within the tunnel. Thereafter, the scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation of any of the dwellings within the development and shall be retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to minimise potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles using the access and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the existing access to the inner courtyard has been closed to vehicles at its entrance, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any work commencing on site. Any gates or barrier provided to close the access to vehicles shall be retained and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and setting of the Listed Building and Scheduled Ancient Monument and the amenities of future occupants of the development and to comply with policies B3 (Change of Use of Listed Buildings), B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no TV, radio or satellite antennae shall be installed on the building without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

LBC/22146/N P/01304/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 01/07/2003 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: c/o Portsmouth Business Consultants

LBC for conversion of premises to form 17 town houses and 1 flat

Golden Hill Fort, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409TF

This report also relates to application no. TCPL/22146M (item no. 7)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major submission. The processing of the application has taken nine weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week time limit for determination as this was the first Committee at which the application could realistically be considered due to the need to carry out consultations on a number of important issues. However, a determination at this meeting will mean that the application has been dealt with within the performance target of thirteen weeks for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to Golden Hill Fort, a mid-19th century fortified barracks which occupies a prominent elevated position on the eastern side of Freshwater. The Fort, a Grade I Listed Building and Scheduled Ancient Monument, is a two storey hexagonal building with an open courtyard in the centre approached through a tunnel across a dry moat.

To the south, east and west the site is bounded by Golden Hill Country Park whilst to north is industrial estate with which Fort shares common access off the main Yarmouth to Freshwater Road, immediately adjacent the junction with Norton Green Road. At time of recent site inspection, majority of the building was disused with some commercial interests occupying part of ground floor of building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCPL/22146/H - P/00593/01 and LBC/22146/J - P/00594/01 - Planning permission and Listed Building consent conditionally approved March 2003 for conversion of premises to form thirty-five flats including retention of Palmerston Public House and cafeteria.

TCPL/22146/K - P/00058/02 and LBC/22146/L - P/00181/02 - Planning permission and Listed Building consent conditionally approved March 2003 for conversion of Palmerston Bar and cafeteria into two flats and conversion of caponier into cycle shed.

The above approvals were the subject of a Planning Obligation requiring payment of total sum of £219,390 as a contribution for provision of affordable housing off site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Current submission seeks full planning permission for conversion of Fort into seventeen town houses and one flat (total of eighteen units). Unlike the previous proposal which involved formation of flats providing accommodation on one level only, the current proposal would, for

most part, involve creation of units providing accommodation on two floors. Plans which accompanied currant submission showed provision of parking for thirty-nine cars and landscaped amenity areas within the dry moat.

Current submission was accompanied by letter from applicant providing information in support of proposal and, in particular, addressing issue relating to requirement for affordable housing. A copy of the letter is attached to this report as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The building is an Ancient Monument and Grade I Listed Building. Building is described in Listing as follows:

"The former Fort now museum and shops. 1863 - 1872. A fortified barracks with guns on the roof which covered the rear of four coast batteries and accommodated their garrisons in peacetime. Hexagonal building approached by a brick lined tunnel and bridge over a ditch. Two storeys red brick in English bond with stone coping and some brick dressings. Internally on three sides there are first floor cambered arches with two sashes and door cases with fanlights and sashes to ground floor. Two storey cast iron balconies. Other three sides have sashes with some having round headed arches. The building accommodated eight officers and one hundred and twenty eight men, and had its own hospital. It mounted six guns on the roof and 40lb breach loaders at each angle on an iron traversing platform. The roof had ammunition recesses. (Anthony Cantwell and Peter Sprack - The Needles Defences)."

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 - Planning and The Historic Environment advises that new uses may often be the key to a building's preservation and that controls over planning matters should be exercised sympathetically where this would enable a historic building to be given a new lease of life. The Guidance Note also provides the following advice regarding the use of Listed Buildings:

"Generally the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. For the great majority this must mean economically viable uses if they are to survive, and new, and even continuing, uses will often necessitate some degree of adaptation."

The Guidance Note also provides advice on alterations and extensions to Listed Buildings and considerations which should be taken into account when considering the suitability of alternative uses of such buildings. In terms of alterations and extensions, the PPG advises, where new uses are proposed for a building, that:

"... it is important to balance the effect of any changes on the special interest of the Listed Building against the viability of any proposed use and of alternative, and possibly less damaging uses. In judging the effect of any alterations or extensions, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make the special interest of the building in question."

In accordance with the advice contained in PPG15, it will be necessary to consider the effect of the alterations on internal, as well as external features. However, the PPG acknowledges that many Listed Buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration to accommodate continuing or new uses. The PPG also recognises that buildings with important interiors will be sensitive to even slight alterations.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside also provides advice on the reuse of buildings in the countryside. Whilst favouring the reuse of buildings for commercial or industrial purposes and recognising that residential conversions may often be detrimental to the fabric and character of historic buildings, the Guidance Note acknowledges that, in some cases, it may not be possible to find a suitable reuse for a Listed Building or other rural building.

The site is located outside the built-up area and development envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Site is also within an area designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). 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.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings.

B3 - Change of Use of Listed Buildings.

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

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes.

C17 - Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer comments that some form of traffic control will have to be implemented, due to the long length of the single carriageway access drive. He advises that, whilst it is understood that planning permission has already been granted for a certain level of parking within the Fort, he is not happy with the prospect of pedestrians having to share the tunnel with vehicles. In addition, he notes that the applicants wish to make up the approach road to the Fort to an adoptable standard and that, in practice, they may find the cost of this prohibitive. He also points out that if it is the intention that the road is adopted following the improvement works, the applicant will have to enter into a Section 38 Agreement with the Council.

Housing Initiatives Officer has been provided with costings for the development by the applicant and has concluded that, in this instance, any requirement to make a financial contribution for affordable housing would prejudice the viability of the proposal. Therefore, he does not believe a property developer would be able to justify developing this site with an additional contribution for affordable housing having to be met.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council support proposal but would comment that systems proposed for proper fire safety protection for the properties do not appear to be sufficient bearing in mind the limited access to the Fort. They would also ask that issues of sustainable energy for new development be addressed.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received at time of preparing this report.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Having regard to the planning history of the site and, in particular, the grant of planning permission for conversion of the Fort to provide a total of thirty-seven flats, I consider that the principle of the conversion of the premises to residential accommodation has been established. The current submission was accompanied by a letter from the applicants requesting that the requirement to provide affordable housing is set aside, with information in support of this request. Therefore, the determining factor in considering the application is whether, in this instance, there is sufficient justification to set aside the requirement for the applicant to provide an element of affordable housing.

The applicant indicates in the letter which accompanies the submission that the original scheme for thirty-seven flats would not be viable due to the cost of the development, a decline in the housing market, the cost of lifting a restrictive covenant on the building and the requirement to make a contribution for affordable housing. It is considered that, even the current scheme, on the basis of the information provided to the Housing Initiatives Officer, would be unlikely to produce an adequate return to make the proposal viable to a developer. However, applicant explains that proposal would be carried out by a conglomerate of private individuals effectively acting as a cooperative with a central management organisation overseeing the communal renovation requirements. In this way, the individuals involved would effectively operate as a self-build group, each making equal contributions to the repair of the building whilst the internal modernisation of the individual units would be their own responsibility.

Members will be aware that the Fort is a Grade I Listed Building and Ancient Monument and English Heritage have recently confirmed that, due to the poor state of repair and continuing decline of the condition of the Fort, they have placed the property on the Buildings at Risk Register. In addition, since this decision was taken, the Fort has been subjected to vandalism and has recently sustained further damage due to a fire.

Over the past twenty-five to thirty years, the Fort has been used for a variety of purposes, including commercial, industrial and tourism activities. Unfortunately, the majority of these uses appear to have been unsuccessful and the necessary investment to maintain the Fort in good condition has not been forthcoming. Advice contained in PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment encourages Authorities to consider favourably proposals which will secure the upkeep of historic buildings and areas by keeping them in active use, whilst having regard for the special character and features of the building. I consider that development of site for residential purposes as proposed would provide the opportunity to restore the building and maintain it for the long term future. Having regard to these factors, I consider that there is sufficient justification in this instance to waive the requirement for the applicant to provide an element of affordable housing, either by way of on-site provision or by a financial contribution for off-site provision. I consider that such a requirement would significantly prejudice the proposal and the likelihood of the conversion being carried out.

Access to site is gained over narrow carriageway which runs through adjacent industrial site and through a tunnel under the earthworks surrounding the dry moat. Site could also be accessed on foot by walking over earthworks providing a more indirect route. Whilst noting concerns of the Highway Engineer, it should be noted that permission was previously granted for conversion of Fort to provide a higher number of residential units, although this proposal did involve provision of some parking within the car park outside the boundaries of the Fort. Whilst site is accessible to pedestrians by walking over earthworks surrounding the dry moat, the tunnel provides the principal means of access and I consider that this is likely to prove more popular with occupants of the development and visitors to the property. I consider that any potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles using the tunnel could be minimised by carrying out traffic calming within the tunnel such as a textured surface to slow vehicles entering the site. The Highway Engineer recommended condition in respect of previous proposal requiring access road between the site and the publicly maintainable highway to be repaired and surfaced in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. I am satisfied that adequate means of access can be provided to the site, although a higher standard of repair/construction may be required if the applicant requires the Authority to adopt the roadway.

Conversion of the Fort to residential accommodation will require the submission of an application for Building Regulations approval and, whilst there would be a degree of flexibility in this respect due to status of building, applicants would be expected generally to comply with the Building Regulations and, for instance, achieve highest possible insulation values without compromising the fabric and special features of the building. Whilst noting comments of Parish Council regarding issues of sustainable energy, any requirement to implement measures over and above those required by the Building Regulations would by reason of the associated costs, place further financial burden on the applicants and prejudice the implementation of the development. Furthermore, such measures may not be appropriate to the character and appearance of the building.

The tunnel on the approach to the Fort clearly restricts access for larger vehicles. Therefore, the matter of access for fire appliances was addressed in some detail at time of dealing with the previous planning application. In order to overcome difficulties in this respect, it was the applicant's intention to install a dry riser system and it is understood that agreement was reached on this aspect of the proposal with the Deputy Senior Fire Safety Officer and the Principal Building Control Surveyor. The current application has confirmed that he would address this issue in the same way. Ultimately, this matter would be dealt with under the Building Regulations at which time full details of the system will be required.

Plans which accompanied current submission show parking for 39 cars within the dry moat. Whilst site is located on the outskirts of Freshwater, I consider that this level of parking is excessive for the number of units proposed. PPG3 -Housing provides guidance on the appropriate level of parking to be provided on housing developments. In particular, the guidance note suggests that car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments. Having regard to this advice, I consider that a maximum of 27 car parking spaces would be an appropriate provision for the number of units proposed by the development.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant 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 other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the conversion of Golden Hill Fort to provide a total of eighteen units of accommodation as proposed is acceptable in principle. Having regard to the status of the Fort as a Grade I Listed Building and Ancient Monument, its present state of disrepair and continuing decline in condition, I consider that it is important to secure an acceptable use for the site in order to achieve renovation and long term maintenance of the building. Therefore, in this instance, I consider that there is sufficient justification to waive the requirement for the developer to provide an element of affordable housing.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The works to which this Listed Building Consent relate must be begun not later than the expiration of 2 years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 18 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and to reduce the risk of the fort deteriorating further in accordance with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	No work shall commence on site until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used in the renovation/repair of the Fort have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Prior to any work commencing on site, a detailed schedule of original internal features together with details of measures to be implemented for their retention shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The replacement of any windows, doors and window/door frames shall be carried out in timber and in a style to match the original windows, doors and window/door frames and in a style to reflect the particular architectural merit of the building and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to any work commencing on site, details of the design, appearance and location of any external lighting and close circuit television cameras shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the lighting and close circuit television camera shall be installed/erected and thereafter retained and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details and no further such equipment shall be installed/erected without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no TV, radio or satellite antennae shall be installed on the building without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That the applicant/agent is advised of the need to contact English Heritage and obtain Scheduled Monument Consent for any works within the Scheduled area.

TCP/25522/A P/01487/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 28/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Applicant: Mr M Smith

Extension at 1st floor level to form bedroom

9 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA

This report relates to application nos. TCP/25634 (item no. 10), TCP/25640 (item no. 11) and TCP/25757 (item no. 12). See report under application no. TCP/25757 (item no. 12)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance would be out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/25634 P/01125/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 03/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Applicant: Mr & Mrs W J McClintock

Extension at 1st floor level to form a bedroom

8 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA

This report relates to application nos. TCP/25522/A (item no. 9), TCP/25640 (item no. 11) and TCP/25757 (item no. 12). See report on application no. TCP/25757 (item no. 12)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance would be out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/25640 P/01150/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 06/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Lynskey

Extension at 1st floor level to form a bedroom

10 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA

This report relates to application nos. TCP/25522/A (item no. 9), TCP/25634 (item no. 10) and TCP/25757 (item no. 12). See report under application no. TCP/25757 (item no. 12)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance would be out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/25757 P/01486/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 28/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Peplow

Extension at 1st floor level to form bedroom

11 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410SA

This is a joint report which also relates to application nos. TCP/25522A (item no. 9), TCP/25634 (item no. 10) and TCP/25640 (item no. 11)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

An application for a dormer on one property was refused under delegated powers. Subsequent applications for similar dormers on adjoining properties led to the resubmission of the refused application, with an undertaking that all four proposals would be considered by the Development Control Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are minor applications.

The processing of the applications for numbers 8 and 10 Fort Victoria Cottages has taken thirteen weeks to date.

The applications for numbers 9 and 11 has taken five weeks to date.

The processing of the applications has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of the need for Committee determination.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

These applications relate to four units within a terrace of Victorian cottages situated to the south of Westhill Lane which leads to Fort Victoria.

The terrace is accessed via an unmade gravel track from Westhill Lane with a shared parking area to the east of the cottages. There is a rear access track to the cottages running to the south and a public footpath at higher level forming an extension of the gravel access track.

There is a modern development of new dwellings situated to the east also served by the same access.

The cottages are of two storey construction with distinctive gabled dormers. The cottages have single story flat roofed extensions to the rear (south) and a wider unit at the western end has a substantial two storey rear extension.

There is an open grassed area to the north of the cottages between the buildings and Westhill Lane. The land rises to the south and is partially screened by trees.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is no planning history relating to the cottages nos 8, 10 and 11 which are the subject of the current application.

The substantial flat roofed two storey extension to the end unit (No.12) was approved in 1972. This relates to the end unit of the terrace on a wider plot.

A planning application for the construction of a two storey lean-to extension to the rear of No.1 Fort Victoria Cottages (TCP/23886) was refused in January 2001 for the following reasons:-

"1. The proposed extension would result in significant loss of amenity, detrimental to occupiers of the adjoining property by virtue of its size and location and would therefore be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed extension by reason of its location, size, design and appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring properties as well as having an adverse affect on the visual amenities of the locality and would therefore be contrary to policies to D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan."

A recent application for a first floor rear extension to No.9 Fort Victoria Cottages (TCP/25522) was refused under delegated powers on 23 June 2003. The reason for the refusal was as follows:-

"The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance, would be intrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan."

The subject of that application showed an extension of similar scale and design to those now under consideration in respect of Nos. 8, 10 and 11. The proposal for No. 9 is a resubmission with the same details.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The applications now under consideration relate to Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 Fort Victoria Cottages.

The application details are similar in respect of all the proposals and show the construction of small first floor rear extensions situated above the existing flat roofed extensions on the southern side of the properties.

The extensions would project to the rear wall of the rear yards of the properties which extends to approximately 2.6 metres beyond the rear wall of the cottages. The extensions would be approximately 2.5 metres in width and have been designed with matching brickwork, windows and a gabled roof to reflect characteristics of the existing buildings. The extension would provide an additional bedroom.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies are contained within the Unitary Development Plan. These are considered to be policy D1 (Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None received.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council support applications in respect of Nos.8, 9 and 11 Fort Victoria Cottages and recommend a site visit in respect of the application for No.10 following refusal for previous application for the other property in the terrace (No.9).

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from Fort Victoria Management Co confirming that they have no objection to the proposed extensions.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

These applications relate to terraced properties which form part of a distinctive group comprising a terrace of twelve cottages overlooking Fort Victoria. The cottages comprise two storey red brick structures with gabled roofs and although the end units have been painted, the overall character of the terrace remains intact. The existing cottages have footpath access to the southern side with sloping grass gardens to the north leading to Westhill Lane. Most of the cottages have single storey flat roofed extensions on their southern side and the unit at the western end does have a substantial two storey flat roofed extension. The terrace as a whole however has a consistent appearance with prominent gabled roofs over the first floor dormer windows and no other significant projections above ground floor level at the south of the properties.

The buildings are not listed, but do form an attractive group of traditional dwellings.

The proposals now under consideration are for gabled roof extensions to the southern side of the properties adjacent to the access path. The extensions would be constructed above the existing ground floor flat roofed elements and would have brick elevations and gabled roofs. The gabled roof to the extension would be slightly lower than those for the existing dormers and would sit between the dormer windows on the rear of the properties.

Although the extensions would be designed with traditional features and would reflect some of the characteristics of the existing buildings, I am concerned that the introduction of a first floor element on this part of the property would be visually intrusive and out of character with the remainder of the terrace. I am also concerned that the extensions would immediately abut the boundary with the adjacent properties and would present a dominant structure in very close proximity to the windows of the adjoining dwellings.

Members will note that similar concerns in respect of previous proposals have resulted in applications being refused, and apart from the 1972 extension on property at the western end of the terrace (No.12) no other first floor extensions have been allowed on these properties to date.

Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan indicates that development will be permitted only where it maintains or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment and applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and conform with various criteria including respecting the visual integrity of the site and the surrounding area, be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing and of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses. The proposal should also provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses and not detract from reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining properties. Policy H7 refers to extension and alterations of existing properties and indicates that these should be of appropriate size, scale and design to the property and should not have excessive impact on neighbouring properties.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The properties are separate units within a terrace of similar properties, characterised by simple rear elevations dominated by gabled dormers. Previous alterations at ground floor level have not significantly affected the overall character of the properties. The proposed first floor gabled roofed extensions would appear over dominant and out of character and would visually compete with the gabled dormer windows on the properties. Further similar extensions would be difficult to resist.

The first floor extension on No.12 was approved in 1972. This relates to a wider unit at the end of the terrace and does not have a significant impact on the open character of the elevation of the terrace as a whole.

The proposed extensions by virtue of their size, design and location are not considered to accord with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies D1 or H7.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL (FOUR APPLICATIONS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance would be out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/8557C- Two storey rear extension to form two self-contained flats, rear

of 26/28 Regent Street, Shanklin

Officer: Mr J Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Summary

To consider whether or not to accept amended plans ‘as built’ in respect of the above development following investigations which have established that the extension has been constructed with the finished height in excess of that which was originally approved.

Background

Back in July 2002 a planning application seeking consent for a two storey extension was submitted showing an addition at the rear of the building, Number 26/28 Regent Street, Shanklin to form two self contained flats. This land locked former unused piece of land is accessed via a path situated on the southern side on the building which in turn, is located on the western side of Regent Street approximately midway between its junctions with Falcon Cross Road and High Street.

The two storey extension was shown to have overall dimensions of 8.5 x 9 metres providing one flat per floor each comprising two bedrooms, lounge, kitchen and bathroom.

The application was advertised and, during the consultation period the Highway Engineers offered no comment and the Town Council recommended approval. No other representations were received. The application was determined by the delegated procedure and the Approval Notice was issued on the 25^th September 2002. It included conditions preventing the inclusion of additional windows or dormer windows and the need to submit a schedule of finishes.

During the construction process, objections were received from the adjoining property owner situated to the southwest. The property is used as an office and it contains a first floor window in its eastern elevation (which marks the boundaries between the properties). The window serves an office and is the only window in that room.

The continuing development was checked and it was found that the siting of the extension was accurate. However, as work had progressed, it was found that the overall height of the structure had been increased from that approved and preliminary dimensions suggested that the building was approximately 0.7 metre higher. The initial measurements taken suggest that the differences are cumulative including an increase of the height of the upper ground floor; increases in floor to ceiling heights on both ground and first floors and an increase in the thickness of the floor itself.

The revised plans requested from the agent show that the upper ground floor is 1 metre above the datum level which is claimed as shown as on the approved plan. However, the floor to ceiling heights on both ground and first floors and the thickness are all greater and the agent has confirmed that, following an ‘as built’ survey the height increase is approximately 0.55 metre.

It appears that this disparity has occurred due to the manufacturer of the timber frame adhering to standard or necessary dimensions.

The increase in height does not affect any other adjoining buildings other than the office building to its southwest. There is a window located in the first floor of the adjoining office, a distance of 1.17 metres from the new structure and its sill height is approximately level with the eaves of the new extension and although the southern most part of the new extension is approximately level with the northern most side of the window, the eaves overhang does project partly across the window.

Financial Implications

None

Options

To accept the amended plans submitted as an amendment to the existing permission.

Not to accept the amended plans and to require the submission of a fresh planning application.

Not to accept the amended plans and advise the agent to implement the planning permission strictly in accordance with the planning permission.

Conclusion

The footprint of the extension, as approved is accurate and in accordance with the approved plans. The height of the building has been increased by between 0.55 metre and 0.7 metre bringing the eaves to a position which is approximately level with the window in the adjoining property. Despite this increase in height, bearing in mind the position of the window and the relative position of the roof of the extension, I do not consider the different position of the building significantly affects light levels, nor that an unacceptable relationship of building results, especially bearing in mind this is the centre of the town where density of development is high and buildings are necessary close together.

The objector argues that this development made prejudice their ability to convert their building into a residential development in the future. The planning system is not intended to be used to prejudice or safe guard one developer against another. It is intended to promote good development. It should also be remembered that the outer wall of the objectors premises form the common boundary between their property and the property the subject of this application and that the extension is approximately 1 metre within its own boundaries. However, I do not consider this development would prejudice the ability of the objector to develop their property which will, if and when a planning application is made, be determined on its individual merit.

In conclusion I consider the increase in height to be acceptable and recommend that the plans be accepted.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has been balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To accept the submitted plans as an amendment to the amended ‘as built’ plans as an amendment to the existing planning permission.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services