PAPER B2              

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.                  NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

TCP/25155/A                                    Mr B Cross against refusal for four storey block of nine flats and associated landscaping land between Prince Consort and Victoria Retirement Hotel, St Thomas’ Street, Ryde.                      

 

TCP/3551/D                                      Westridge Estates against refusal for demolition of existing building and construction of four detached houses and garages, alterations to vehicular access and provision of parking and turning at The Crab Shack, Duver Road, Seaview.

 

TCP/15334/A                                    Mr R Holbrook and Miss A Gray against refusal for external staircase from first floor to garden area at 18B Trinity Street, Ryde.

 

TCP/24977/A                                    Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society against refusal of outline for thirty six bed nursing home on land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde.

 

           A/2315                                               Hovertravel Ltd against refusal of advertisement consent  for signage at Hovertravel Terminal, Ryde Esplanade, Ryde.

 

TCP/25320                                        Mr A Howlett against refusal for demolition of semi detached dwelling and outline for two bungalows and alterations to vehicular access at Wedgewood, Rosemary Lane, Ryde.

 

 

 

 

2.        HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

TCP/24977                                        Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society against refusal of outline for two storey building comprising twelve elderly persons units, twenty four bed nursing home and associated facilities to include training/day support centre and vehicular access and parking land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde.

 

The hearing is to take place on 6 January 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.         REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

(1)               TCP/24961                            Mr and Mrs E J A Peach against refusal for picket fence and entrance gate at 160 Howgate Road, Bembridge. 

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (Part 1) - 20 August 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 28 July 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      The effect of the proposed fence on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      The garden is currently open plan and is visually very prominent in the street scene.

 

·                      The open plan nature of the front gardens of the converted farm buildings characterises the visual appearance of the area.

 

·                      In this location a fence would detract from the open character of the front gardens.

 

·                      The proposed fencing would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and not accord with G4 and D1 of the UDP.

 

·                      Allowing this appeal would make it more difficult for the Council to resist further applications for such fences.

 

·                      The cumulative effect would be to severely erode the open character of the area.

 

.........................................................................................................................................................

 

(b)       TCP/10399/F                        Mr N P Abram against refusal of outline for a dwelling land rear of Hyfields, off Yaverland Road, Sandown.  

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (part 1) - 27 September 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 28 July 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area taking account of the policies of restraint towards development in the AONB.

 

·                      The effect of the proposed development on Highway safety.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      The proposal would not meet the stated criteria in the UDP for development in the countryside.

 

·                      The site lies beyond the edge of the built up area and is in the open countryside.

 

·                      Development of this site would result in the consolidation of the loose-knit residential development which characterises the area.

 

·                      A new dwelling on this site would be prominent and would appear a discordant and harmful intrusion into the countryside.

 

·                      The proposal would conflict with policies of the UDP.

 

·                      The access lane is narrow, poorly constructed and the visibility at the junction to Yaverland Road limited.

 

·                      The access is currently used by an hotel and other nearby dwellings and the limited additional use of the lane generated by a single dwelling would not constitute sufficient grounds to reject the proposal.

 

·                      On the second issue, the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.

 

·                      The proposal would cause serious harm to the character and appearance of the area and for this reason the proposed development should not go ahead.

 

...................................................................................................................................................

 

(1)               TCP/25171                            Mrs H A Hayles against refusal for a bungalow with access off Dairy Lane, rear of 3 - 4 Chestnut Close, Newport.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (Part 1) - 17 December 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 30 July 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      The effect of the proposed bungalow on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

·                      The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties in terms of potential loss of visual amenity and visual impact.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      The properties in the area have generous private gardens.

 

·                      The public spaces surrounding are open plan and soft landscaped which reinforces the spacious suburban character of the area.

 

·                      The lack of residential curtilage and the high boundary fencing would lead to the proposal appearing cramped in relation to the surrounding development.

 

·                      The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area because of its cramped and obtrusive appearance and would be contrary to policies D1 and G4 of the UDP.

 

·                      The proposed bungalow would be in an elevated position some 2 metres above the ground floor level of the flats.

 

·                      There would be a clear view into the adjoining gardens from the site of the proposed bungalow.

 

·                      Although a 2 meter high fence is proposed which would prevent direct overlooking, the adjoining occupiers would feel overlooked.

 

·                      The proposed fence would lead to a loss of visual amenity and affect the adjoining owners’ enjoyment of their private rear gardens.

 

·                      The proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties in terms of loss of visual amenity and would be contrary to H5 of the UDP.

 

...................................................................................................................................................

 

 

(4)                           E/22966/E                             Mr R Richards against Enforcement Notice relating to the siting and storage of coaches, motor vehicles and associated vehicle parts at Palmers Brook Farm, Wootton.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Enforcement action to cease the use and the removal of the vehicles and parts.

 

Committee Decision:                    Enforcement action - 10 December 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 5 August 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      Whether the land has been used to store cars, agricultural equipment and the van body for more than ten years before the breach was first notified by the Council.

 

·                      Whether the steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      The aerial photograph produced by the Council taken in 1999 shows the site to be predominantly unused.

 

·                      The appellant pleaded agricultural equipment had been stored on the land for more than ten years but there was no evidence of any such equipment.

 

·                      The burden of proof in such cases is on the appellant and in the absence of any positive evidence to support his claim his appeal under this ground must fail.

 

·                      The reasons for issuing the notice assert detriment to the visual amenities of this area of countryside.

 

·                      The taller vehicles can be seen above the roadside walls and some can be seen in oblique views across the grazing land to the west.

 

·                      Because a development cannot be seen is not a reason in itself for allowing the appeal as it could be repeated all too often and cumulatively result in an adverse impact upon the rural character and appearance of the area.

 

·                      The required steps are not excessive and the appeal fails.

...................................................................................................................................................

 

(e)      TCP/2425T and E/2425U    Mr K Farr against refusal of planning permission for the retention of two holiday lets and the conversion of a barn to form two holiday lets and an Enforcement Notice which requires the use of the two unauthorised holiday units to cease and all the furniture, fittings and internal partition walls to be removed within three months.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal and enforcement action

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal and enforcement action - 11 June 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                            Both appeals dismissed - 6 August 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      The likely impact of the development upon the coastal stability.

 

·                      The implications for vehicular and pedestrian safety from use of the existing access drive to the site.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      It is clear from the appellant’s civil engineer’s report that it is not possible to predict when future land movements may occur.

 

·                      The Council’s Coastal Manager did not consider the conversion in itself is likely to result in any additional instability problems but is concerned over the significant amounts of additional water being discharged into the ground which could affect stability.

 

·                      There is insufficient information to clearly demonstrate that water flows from this development will not add to instability problems.

 

·                      The existing access is steep with walls and embankments to either side and already serves a number of other dwellings.

 

·                      The conditions are likely to be less hazardous now than when the lane was used by farm traffic and the likely conflict between vehicles and pedestrians would not be so serious or in conflict with TR7 as to justify resisting this appeal on this second issue.

 

·                      The re-use of the single storey buildings would not harm the character or  appearance of this attractive rural area.

 

·                      The accommodation would be likely to contribute to the local tourism economy.

 

·                      However, none of these factors are sufficient to outweigh the serious concerns regarding coastal stability.

 

·                      To avoid cancelling bookings at short notice, a six month period in which to comply with the notice is more appropriate and the compliance period is accordingly varied.

 

...................................................................................................................................................

 

(6)               TCP/25248                            Mr B Button against refusal for an extension at first floor level to enlarge accommodation at 36 Warwick Street, Ryde.

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Refusal (Part 1) - 7 January 2003

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 11 August 2003

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular reference to privacy, sunlight and daylight and visual impact.

 

·                      The effect of the proposed development on the street scene through massing and design.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      Because of the difference in levels and the limited distance between nos. 36 and 33, people using the third bedroom of the proposed development would be able to overlook the rear garden area of no. 33 from a relatively close distance.

 

·                      Overlooking from the proposed bedroom two and from the balcony would result in a serious loss of privacy in the rear garden of no.33.

 

·                      The position of the window in bedroom two and the balcony relative to no. 37 would cause serious loss of privacy in their rear garden.

 

·                      The height and bulk of the proposed extension would significantly reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight in the rear garden and a first floor bedroom at no.37.

 

·                      The length, height and position of the proposed development would make it appear overpowering when viewed from both 33 and 37.

 

·                      The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the living conditions of adjoining residents because of visual dominance.

 

·                      The side elevation of the proposed extension would be clearly visible through the gap in the street scene.

 

·                      It would look out of proportion to the existing appeal property and would be seriously detrimental to the street scene and contrary to UDP policies G4, D1 and H7.

 

...................................................................................................................................................

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.