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.
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.
|
1. |
TCP/01813/N P/01877/03 Parish/Name: Totland
Ward: Totland Registration
Date: 01/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Rybarn Ltd Demolition of
building; construction of a 2 storey building and a 2/3 storey building to
form 14 flats with associated parking Clifton Home For
The Elderly, Broadway, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390AN |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested
by Councillor John Howe as he is not prepared to agree to the application being
dealt with under the delegated procedure.
PERFORMANCE
INFORMATION
This application,
if determined at this meeting will have taken sixteen weeks to process, the
delay being due to negotiations concerning access.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Site has an area
of approximately 0.15 hectare and is located on the south east side of the
B3322, the Broadway, just to the south of its junction with the A3055 (Avenue
Road) at Totland. Traffic at this
junction is controlled by a mini-roundabout.
The site is
presently occupied by a two/three storey home for the elderly, a fairly large
building constructed in red brickwork under gabled roofs. The property has a short road frontage to
the Broadway with the site opening out into a width of approximately 35 metres
and with a similar frontage onto the unmade road at the rear linking Avenue
Road with the Mall. To the north of the
site is a property known as Driftwood.
This is a comparatively modern two storey residential dwelling facing
Avenue Road and accessed off the unmade road on its eastern side. Rathrobin is a bungalow located on the south
west side of the site whilst to the west, also fronting the Broadway is another
two storey residential property. The
area is one of mixed development, some large properties, a church but
comprising mostly large buildings in fairly generous curtilages.
Clifton is
presently served by access from the Broadway in a position in its narrow
frontage which is situated about 40 metres from the centre of the roundabout
located to the north.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In July of last
year a planning application seeking consent for the demolition of the existing
building and its replacement with twenty flats in a four storey building was
withdrawn, before consideration by the Committee.
Prior to that,
planning permissions largely related to the Clifton as a residential home.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Full planning
permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and the
redevelopment of the site with fourteen flats in two blocks.
The larger block
is shown to be located running parallel to the rear boundary of the site with a
similar depth of frontage to the unmade road as the adjoining properties. The smaller block is shown to be situated in
the western corner with a space between the blocks of about 5 metres. Plans show the larger block to comprise two
and three storeys, the centre section being three storeys with some
accommodation appearing to be within the roofspace due to the eaves and roof
configuration. At each end of the
building there is a two storey element and the building virtually fills the
width of the site with a space of 1.5 metres on the northern side and
approximately 2.2 metres on the southern side.
The building is shown to be constructed in brickwork primarily with
plain tiled roofs and with gables clad also in plain tiles. The eaves of each of the elements is reduced
to window sill level or below but there are gabled features which are of full
three storey height. In terms of
general massing, the building has been divided into three elements, as
previously described, the two, two storey elements at each end and the larger
three storey element in the middle. The
smaller of the two blocks is also constructed in similar materials and of a
similar style, brickwork elevations with a plain tiled gabled roof
incorporating dormers and gable features.
Essentially
fenestration has a distinct vertical emphasis of what appears to be traditional
style windows, the upper parts of which are small paned giving the appearance
of sliding sash windows. Some
elevations include balconies which have balustrades of an unspecified
material. Revised plans received omit
balconies in sensitive positions.
Flats vary in size
but each has either one, two or three bedrooms, the two and three bedroom flats
having one en-suite and each with a living room/kitchen and varying between 55
square metres and 82.5 square metres.
Access is proposed
off the Broadway, via the existing but improved entrance leading to a roughly
rectangular shaped parking area located abutting the north east boundary where
the current parking area is, providing parking for fourteen vehicles (one space
per flat). In addition, towards the western
extent of the site is shown to be a layout of covered cycle parking and a bin
store. Block paving surrounds the east
and southern sides of the car park giving access to the main front door of the
flats. The revised plans show an
improved access arrangement.
Areas of open
space exist around proposed buildings and between the two blocks and along the
frontage to the unmade road to the east.
There are
substantial trees along the eastern boundary and two large trees in close
proximity to the south eastern corner of the larger block.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Within designated
development envelope but unallocated for any specific purpose on inset A of the
Unitary Development Plan. Site is not
within a Conservation Area nor an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Site is therefore considered as a windfall
site.
Site is not
subject to any restrictive policy in respect of the redevelopment of care
homes.
PPG3 applies,
referring to redevelopment of brownfield sites and the best use of urban land.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommended refusal to original submission in terms of inadequate
visibility. Following negotiations and
suggestions by the Highway Engineer revised plans have been received in line
with the Highway Engineer's suggestions but he further comments that he would
prefer to see the site accessed from the unmade road at the rear, raising
concern over the access to the development being in comparatively close
proximity with the roundabout. He
continues by saying that road distances (90 metres) can be reduced if the actual
traffic speeds are less than 30 mph.
Further comments on revised plans are awaited and will be reported at
the meeting.
Acting Head of
Adult Services offers no comment.
National Care
Standards Commission point out that Clifton ceased to be a registered home some
months ago and offer no comment.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Totland Parish
Council oppose the application on grounds of inadequate vehicular access for
the number of vehicles involved; the position of the access remains too close
to the roundabout, allowing vehicles into a fast moving traffic flow;
inadequate parking for residents and on grounds that the number of dwellings
and the resultant size of building is excessive.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Seven letters of
objection from local residents stating that:
a
Development too close to existing properties and
possible source of structural instability.
b
Visual impact of increased mass of building and
consequent change of character.
c
Loss of trees.
d
Increased use of access which would be dangerous
especially due to the proximity of the access to the roundabout.
e
Inadequate drainage.
f
Loss of home for the elderly.
g
Overdominant building.
h
Inadequate car parking.
i
Loss of light.
j
Possible flooding due to increased surface water
runoff.
k
One writer draws attention to the continuing
addition of development in the area thus adding to the traffic utilising this
junction.
One of the letters
suggests that Uplands Road should be used for access utilising the existing
access to Broadway for pedestrians only.
One of the seven
letters suggests that the building would be better converted rather than
demolished and the site redeveloped.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
The relevant
Officer has been consulted and comments in the following terms:
Points out that
the proposed development has solved most of the external problems with blocks
of flats by providing gardens to the ground floor units that with appropriate
boundary fencing this should aid security with the exception of gates provided
in the eastern boundary of the site and questions the type of gates to be
provided, what security will be fitted and what would stop residents just
leaving them unlocked. Questions the
type of lighting which will be provided on the site, especially around the main
entrance and the cycle park, and if there is room at the entrance to the site
to provide a pedestrian protected walkway to separate vehicle and pedestrian
traffic. The Architectural Liaison
Officer also makes positive suggestions regarding positions of fences and
signage to ensure parking is used by visitors and residents only and applauds
the use of low level planting to provide good entrance and exit visibility. Also suggests that the applicant and agent
consider trying to achieve "Secure by Design" certification.
EVALUATION
Essentially this
is an application which seeks to redevelop a site which would otherwise be
called a brownfield site, being a site which has already been developed, although
it is acknowledged that the site is not derelict although not now in use. However, located within the development
envelope and in the absence of policies which might resist the loss of elderly
persons accommodation, the reuse of the site for residential purposes is
acceptable in principle. The
determining factors would therefore seem to be the detailed aspects of the
proposed development including scale and mass of which height is an important
factor, the density of development, the design of the proposals; effect on
adjoining properties; matters relating to traffic and access and effect on
trees on the site.
On the first
issue, that of scale and mass, the building is of greater proportions than that
which it proposes to replace in terms of site coverage and general bulk. It is, however, of compatible and comparable
size to the church on the opposite side of Uplands Road. The site coverage, the building's mass and
scale are all factors of the need to increase densities so as to affect the
concept of best use of urban land as advised by Central Government in trying to
meet the requirements of housing provision but at the same time preserving the
countryside. The increase in density is
consistent with this practice and its appropriateness should be judged on the
basis of the resultant development and whether or not the development
"works". The density
represents some ninety dwellings per hectare.
In design terms,
linked with the massing of the building the scheme incorporates lower scaled
elements of the building where they abut the lower scale adjoining
properties. These are in fact two
storey which is compatible with the adjoining development and the design scheme
incorporates gables, tile hanging features, vertical emphasis fenestration,
features which appear in the more established parts of Totland. The design and style are consistent with the
character of the area and from an architectural viewpoint I consider the design
to be appropriate.
Turning to effect
on adjoining properties, there are three dwellings which abut the site and
which would be considered to be those which might be affected the most. The introduction of a redevelopment scheme
in any developed area is likely to result in some effects of overshadowing,
dominance and loss of privacy to adjoining properties. The current scheme seeks to minimise these
effects by incorporating few windows in the elevations which face adjoining
properties. In the case of the north
eastern elevation, facing the property known as Driftwood, the elevation
incorporates six windows, three on each of first and ground floors. The plans show that the ground floor windows
will be effectively screened by the addition of boundary fencing, windows which
are shown to serve two bedrooms and the living room on ground floor. The first floor windows in that elevation
are shown to serve an en-suite bathroom, a bedroom and a secondary window to a
kitchen area, and all three are shown to be in obscured glazing.
The south western
elevation of the main block incorporates no windows which directly face
adjoining property on ground floor, but two narrow windows which are located in
a single storey element of the building which projects and the windows are
included in the flank walls and therefore at right angles to the adjoining
boundary. The first floor element
includes two windows, both secondary windows to the living room/kitchens and
again are shown to be obscure glazed.
These will light rooms but will not allow overlooking to occur. The primary windows in those units are in
the east and west elevations of the building.
The smaller block
abuts the rear boundary of a property which fronts the Broadway. The western elevation of that element of the
development incorporates three windows on ground floor, one lights the stairwell
servicing the first floor flat, one a bathroom and third is a secondary window
to the living area. The first floor
windows are shown to serve the stairwell and a secondary window to the living
room and, again, these windows are shown to be obscure glazed. On that basis I do not consider the first
floor windows will create an overlooking problem due to their obscurity and
that ground floor windows will be adequately screened by boundary treatments.
However, the
original scheme incorporated a balcony at the rear of the first floor unit on
the smaller block and balconies in other positions on the main block and at
least two of these are likely to result in an overlooking impact if not
adequately screened. These balconies
are likely to overlook two of those three properties adjoining and accordingly
should be omitted from the scheme and, indeed the revised plans have omitted
these.
Two of the three
properties mentioned are located on the southern side of the development and
the third is located at a distance of approximately twelve metres to the north
and therefore I do not consider the development will result in a significant
loss of light to those properties as their orientation is such that the sun
will not be blocked out or there is sufficient gap between the properties to
allow adequate levels of light to be maintained.
Turning to the
matter of traffic generation and the adequacy of the proposed access,
discussions have taken place with the Highways Engineers in order to address
the question of the access. Initially
the Engineers felt the access as proposed had inadequate visibility splays to
ensure safety bearing in mind the capacity of the development envisaged. Alterations to the scheme have culminated in
the submission of revised plans showing a widened access, and by moving the
access further to the north east, a marginally greater visibility splay has
been achieved in a south westerly direction.
These alterations have also culminated in the location of the cycle
parking provision to an area which is more enclosed, further from the access
and therefore more easily surveyed from within the building. Bearing in mind the site is already used as
an elderly persons home with a vehicular access off the Broadway at this
location, the improvement to the access, the capacity of the car parking area,
it is felt that the increase in use is such that can be accepted.
In terms of
parking provision, bearing in mind the site's location on a main bus route and
its location within an area of residential development, the parking ratio of
one space per flat is considered appropriate.
Turning to the
aspect of trees, it is clear that there is a line of mature and tall trees
along the eastern boundary of the site with Uplands Road. These are approximately 7 - 9 metres from
the proposed building but there are two further specimens which are close on
its southern side, within two metres. I
do not consider it practical to keep these trees despite the fact that the
plans show they are to be retained. One
further tree is shown to be removed but I think, in practical terms, all three
will have to be removed. It has been
suggested that access could be made for some of the units of Uplands Road. Some of the trees are situated on a bank and
to facilitate access for vehicles substantial excavation would need to be
carried out in order to form an adequate gradient and surface for vehicles to
enter. Bearing in mind the size, age
and spacing of these trees, I do not consider such accesses could be formed
without the trees being seriously damaged by severance of the roots. It is important to maintain these trees if
at all possible as they are mature and have a significant screening effect if
maintained so I am reluctant to suggest that access should be gained from
Uplands Road to serve even part of the development.
Various objections
have been raised by local residents, some of which are discussed above. There
have been concerns raised over the structural implications of development in
close proximity to dwellings but these are largely civil and engineering
problems which are the liability of the developer. Drainage inadequacy has been alleged and this again is largely a
Building Regulation matter. Adequate
drainage would need to be installed as part of the development process and I am
not aware of any allegation that local drainage services are inadequate to cope
with any additional load put on by the proposals. Drainage within the site as part of the overall development would
need to be installed and, again, would be the subject of Building Regulations
approval.
In summary, the
redevelopment of this site for residential purposes raises no principle
objection since there is no policy which seeks to resist the loss of elderly
persons accommodation; residential redevelopment within a development envelope
is acceptable and the density increase is the inevitable result of the need to
utilise land more economically so as to preserve the countryside. The increased height of the building by one
storey is also a factor in the drive to make best use of such land and
therefore, as designed I consider the second floor element does not
significantly affect the character of the area.
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 of 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
The redevelopment
of this site for residential purposes does not conflict with any policy within
the Unitary Development Plan regarding the loss of elderly persons
accommodation and within the development envelope, the principle of residential
development is accepted. Although the
building covers more of the site and results in an increased mass, these are
factors of the need to utilise land economically. Accordingly, having given due regard and appropriate weight to the
material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above the
development of the site for residential purposes is considered to be consistent
with policies D1, D2, H5 and TR7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL (Revised Plans)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
Submission of
samples - S03 |
|
3 |
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. |
|
4 |
The
first floor windows to be constructed in the north east elevation of flat no.
8, the south west elevation of flats 11 and 12 and the north west elevation
of flat 7 shall be glazed and shall thereafter be maintained in obscured
glass. The bottom half of those
windows shall be non-opening and shall be so retained thereafter. Reason: To
protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Details of hard
and soft landscaping - M10 |
|
6 |
Any
condition recommended by the Highway Engineer. |
|
2. |
TCP/02505/E P/02135/02 Parish/Name: Gurnard
Ward: Gurnard Registration
Date: 27/11/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Crocker 2 detached 3
storey houses with integral garages; vehicular access (revised plans) land adjacent
25, Princes Esplanade, Cowes, PO31 |
Members will
recall that this application was considered at the meeting held on 16 December
2003 at which time the application was deferred for reasons that Members were
concerned regarding the close proximity of the houses to the adjacent
bungalow. It was noted that space was
available on the north eastern side of the proposed dwellings which may permit
relocation further from the adjacent bungalow.
Negotiations have
resulted in an increase in the gap by two metres. Details of which are covered elsewhere in the report under the
heading Details of Application.
Therefore Members are reminded that this application is before them for
determination on the single issue of whether or not the increase in the gap
between the existing bungalow and the proposed houses is now sufficient to
allay their concerns.
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application raises
a number of contentious issues with particular reference to design and slope
stability and therefore committee consideration is warranted in this case.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which has taken 64 weeks to date.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to rectangular sloping site adjacent a modest detached bungalow
situated at the Gurnard end of Princes Esplanade with the adjacent property
being the last property in a line of mixed residential development. Adjoining to the north east is a substantial
extent of woodland (Princes Esplanade Wood) which extends over a substantial
frontage of Princes Esplanade terminating at a development known as Hawkins,
being a modern apartment block.
Site is adjacent
existing property known as Janarene which is one of two modest single storey
properties with the other being the property known as Seacroft. This area of Princes Esplanade is
characterised by a mixture of dwelling types ranging from chalet to bungalow
properties of varying sizes and on a similar building line. Previous referred to woodland extends to the
rear of the application site. Site
generally slopes from the north west to the south east to Princes Esplanade
with the lower half of the site representing the toe of that slope.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In January 2002 a
detailed application was submitted for a detached dwelling with integral garage
adjacent to Janarene which following inconclusive negotiations regarding a
number of issues was withdrawn in November 2002.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Proposal seeks detailed
consent to construct two detached split level dwellings of modern design on
this site which is generally characterised by overgrown foliage being a mixture
of blackthorn to the front over mature willow scrub centrally located extending
to the rear with further woodland character in the north eastern corner. Following negotiations the dwelling which
stands directly abutting Janarene is slightly smaller than that abutting the
north eastern boundary. Details are as
follows:-
House
One (abutting north eastern boundary) provides following accommodation
Ground
Floor - double garage, sun room/bedroom and WC with entrance hall.
First
Floor plan - living/dining, kitchen, bathroom, study, bedroom with en-suite
bathroom and hall.
Second
Floor plan - master bedroom with two
further bedrooms, all with en-suite bathrooms, landing and terraced area.
House
Two (abutting property Janarene)
Ground
Floor - double garage, sun room/bedroom and WC with entrance hall.
First
Floor plan - living/dining, kitchen,
study, bedroom and bathroom.
Second
Floor plan - master bedroom with en-suite single bedroom, external decking with
flat roof area to rear.
Dwellings to be
located slightly forward of the building line to Janarene with the property
adjacent north eastern boundary set slightly further forward. Dwellings to be constructed in a grey facing
brick on the ground floor with the first and second floor to be finished in
horizontal cedar barding. Dwellings to
be provided with a heavy fascia with deep overhang finished in felted flat
roof. Dwellings themselves to be
heavily glazed.
Access to be via a
shared access off Princes Esplanade with the frontage boundary wall being
slightly splayed to achieve suitable visibility. The area in front of the dwellings to be paved providing turning
and additional parking.
Following deferral
of the application negotiations have resulted in the submission of the revised
plans which now indicate a distance of approximately 3.5 metres, between the
dwelling and the south western boundary (abutting Janarene), an increase of 2
metres. A 1.2 metre gap is retained
between the two dwellings. The result
of the revision in terms of the relationship to the adjoining woodland, which
encroaches slightly into the site, the gap has now been reduced to 8 metres
from its original 10 metres off the north eastern boundary.
In terms of height
relationship to the adjoining property Janarene, the proposed house type two
will be at its highest, i.e. top of flat roof 1.4 metres higher than the top of
ridge of the property Janarene.
Incidentally the property Janarene is a green tiled hipped roof bungalow
property. That 1.4 metre height is at a
distance of approximately 6.2 metres off the north west facing elevation of
that existing property. The top of the
balustrading which serves the second floor deck to the new property is
approximately 0.6 metre lower than the ridge height of the adjoining
property. At its maximum the height of
the two units is 8.6 metres above pavement level.
Application
accompanied by specialist information covering ecology and ground stability.
In terms of the
geotechnical / slope stability report which clearly recognises the particular
problems relating to this site and concludes that "introducing a line of
reinforced 'contiguous' piles to provide in simple terms a secure wall could
permanently stabilise the land. This
would have the double benefit of not only creating a line of support but would
allow for unimpeded excavations, all of which without the need for extensive
temporary support."
Report recommends
the foundations should be in the form of a series of "reinforced concrete
ground beams which in turn are supported by deep reinforced cast in situ
piles."
"To
accommodate the increased level changes as detailed would warrant the use of a
contiguous piled wall which would arrest all lateral forces."
"Dwellings
themselves to be in the form of engineered timber framed superstructure which
can accommodate long term movements."
"Foundation
designs indicate 600 mm piles cast in a depth of around 18 metres."
Finally the report
recommends that the site should not be subject to any unnecessary excavations
in conjunction with any landscaping of the site and suggests that the
topography should be left largely unaltered to minimise risk from ground
movement occurring.
In terms of
ecology application subject of a specialist report which describes site as
scrub and secondary woodland with the proposed site comprising mixture of
blackthorn, hawthorn and sallow scrub.
Some evidence of the remnants of a natural pond created by past soil
slumping.
Report suggests
that within the 10 metre area which forms the north eastern area of the site
should be appropriately managed to enhance wildlife.
In terms of
protected mammal species, the site survey concludes that there is evidence of
dormice on the south western edge of the site with it being reasonable to
assume dormice will be using the scrub on the site at low densities. Report recommends that licence be applied
for under the Regulations.
Report suggests
that there is no evidence of red squirrels with the habitat not being suitable
for these species. Also report finds
that there is no evidence of badger setts on the site although some foraging
activity was indicated. Report
recommends that guidelines by English Nature should be followed.
Application
accompanied by a design statement which provides factual information and
relates to policy considerations and contains an analysis of the area as
follows:
"The
surrounding dwellings have no definite period or style influence. They are very individual to their
plots. This also expands to the choice
of materials which include brick render, boarding to the walls and slate, tile,
felt and shingles to the roof. It is
also noted that Janarene footprint is considerably smaller than the majority
within the immediate area."
Statement goes on
to consider the importance of the views out of the site over the Solent which
applicants have sought to maximise.
Statement suggests that the internal layout and overall modern design
approach has been determined by the emphasis on the seaward views. In terms of the adjacent woodland,
applicants are conscious of the need to respect the ecology in the area,
evidenced by the specialist report which accompanied the application. Applicant state:
"When
considering our design, we felt it was important to utilise timber externally
where practical. Not only does timber
have a relationship with the woodland but also with its coastal setting.
In
terms of impact on neighbouring property Janarene, side elevation will only
have high level windows with the proposed property being tiered down to give
the house less vertical dominance over Janarene with a further height
progression towards the north east."
In conclusion
applicants state the following:
"We
feel our design embodies the important aspects of the site and our clients
requirements. We feel its architecture
is contemporary yet sympathetic to its location and surroundings. We feel the proposal is a fitting conclusion
to the development envelope when approaching from either direction along the
Esplanade or viewed from the Solent."
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
National Policies
as follows:
PPG 9 - Nature
Conservation which provides comprehensive advice on the relationship between
planning control and nature conservation.
PPG14 -
Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning Annexe 1 March 1996
relevant points as follows:
In
relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development
by controlling or restricting developments where appropriate.
Policies
should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding including
the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining
planning application.
Where
appropriate planning application should be accompanied by slope stability
report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so and will
not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.
PPG14
also advises that Planning Authority should carry out their best endeavours to
be provided with information ensuring safe development which will not impact on
neighbouring land but emphasises that the ultimate responsibility for safe
development rests with the developer.
Site within the
development envelope boundary as defined for Cowes in the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.
North eastern
boundary and rear south eastern boundary directly abuts site of importance for
nature conservation (SINC) being C234 (Princes Esplanade Wood). Woodland area itself is subject of a
Woodland Order under the Tree Preservation Order Regulations.
Members will be
aware of the publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study
commissioned by the Council. The study
area extends from Market Hill to Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as
far as Baring Road and Solent View Road.
The main objectives of the study were to review the stability of the
coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of current application the site is
within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability
report prepared by a competent person with the document advising a geotechnical
engineer.
Relevant Local
Plan Policies
G4 - General
Locational Criteria for Development.
G7 -
Unstable Land.
D1 -
Standards of Design.
D2 -
Standards of Development within the Site.
TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development.
D3 -
Landscaping.
C8 -
Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
suggests conditions covering visibility and sight lines and construction of the
access should application be approved.
There is a major
TRANSCO gas service pipe within Princes Esplanade. They have been consulted and confirm that the site is within the
vicinity of an above ground gas pressure reducing station. The agency advises all necessary precautions
where construction work, with particular reference to excavation, takes place
within ten metres of that station.
The Council's
Ecology Officer confirms site's location in respect of SINC C234 with
particular reference to the leaving of a 10 metre transitional area from the
SINC boundary. He advises suitable
conditions be applied covering landscaping of this area. He also makes reference to the likelihood of
dormice occupation and the need to require an appropriate DEFRA licence in
addition to any planning consent.
Finally he makes reference to badgers being in the area and therefore
applicant may wish to employ a badger consultant to ensure no setts are in
existence on the site.
Environment Agency
recommends condition foul drainage should be to mains foul drainage only. Applicant has also been advised by the
Environment Agency that although the site is adjacent a tidal flood plain area,
there may be problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access
during flood event. Site operator
should ensure adequate flood evacuation plan is implemented for such
eventualities. Otherwise, Agency has no
objection in principle to the proposal.
English Nature has
been consulted and although have no objection in respect of the site's location
adjacent the Solent Maritime cSAC expressing the opinion that the proposal is
not likely to have a significant effect on the cSAC either alone or in
combination with other plans or projects.
English Nature, however, expresses concern regarding the level and
methodology of information in respect of wildlife habitat with particular
reference to dormice, badgers and the existence of a pond and therefore the
potential for great crested newt occupation.
Following this comment further update information was received from the
applicant which was forwarded to English Nature who now confirm that they
have no objection to the proposed development subject to the granting of a
DEFRA licence and that such licence application should be accompanied by a
method statement containing details of mitigation and compensation for
minimising short and long term impacts on dormice.
The submitted
geotechnical and slope stability report has been carefully vetted by the
Council's consulting geotechnical engineer who initially expressed
dissatisfaction at the details submitted and his summary is quoted as follows:
"The
site is situated towards the toe of a large and deep seated (at least 7 to 9
metres deep at the bore hole position) landslide complex. This landslide complex is known to have been
active in the recent past. The exact
mechanism of the landslide complex has not been ascertained. It is therefore difficult to come to a firm
conclusion with regard to their proposals which are in any case unclear. My own view is that as the proposed
development is situated at the toe of the slope any additional load caused by
its weight would be beneficial, however the architectural drawings indicate
excavations into the hillside to form a split level building. Such an excavation may well have a
destabilising effect.
Therefore
it has not been demonstrated that the development would not cause instability
to the surrounding area. Also there is,
in my opinion, a real risk of the site being affected by movement of the
landslide leading to heave over the site of the proposed development and/or the
risk of the site being inundated by a mud slide formed above the
development. Such possibilities should
be thoroughly investigated and appropriate stabilisation measures taken prior
to any permission being granted on this site."
Applicant's
engineer has been requested to address the issues raised and following
extensive level of negotiations and discussions between the relative engineers,
the Planning Authority is now in receipt of a letter from their consulting
geotechnical engineer which confirms the following:
"Having
perused Robert Cowan's letter of 17 October and subsequent calculations I am
now satisfied that the proposed development fulfills the requirements of
PPG14."
Initial
application placed before the Architects' Panel whose comments are summarised
as follows:
Quality
and materials would have significant influence on success of the design.
Space
between buildings poor feature of the design with that gap either being
increased or some linkage feature introduced to read as a single block.
Particular
reference made to the apparent close proximity to the existing bungalow.
Detailing
of the two blocks was acceptable although choice of materials with particular
reference to colour would be very important.
Panel
of opinion that type and style of building acceptable in the concept of a
symmetrical pair.
Following these
panel comments negotiations have taken place with the result of revised plans
being submitted which have been further considered by the panel who expressed
disappointment at the level of change which has taken place in respect of their
previous comments.
Members are also
advised that Robin McInnes, Coastal Manager, was consulted but chose not to
comment specifically on the submitted information making reference to the
comments which he made in respect of the previous application for one dwelling
which was withdrawn. That particular
comment raised a number of issues which significantly raised the matter of
excavation being near the toe of the landslide. The Coastal Manager commented that the applicant would be
expected to provide information on how the dwelling can be constructed without
adversely affecting the slope behind or adjacent properties.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gurnard Parish
Council comment as follows:
That
the Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that there are
land stability concerns on the site, that the proposals amount to over
development and that there is encroachment on the SINC area.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Adjoining
property owner has a number of concerns, the main one of which is ground
stability. Points raised are summarised
as follows:
Concern
that proposals may create potential danger to his own property.
Having
obtained his own specialist comments in respect of the former report submitted
with the previous withdrawn application he poses the question of whether or not
the concerns raised by his own consultant have been addressed and that the
submitted report will be duly checked by an independent geotechnical
specialist.
He is
particularly concerned that the current proposal indicates a dwelling even
closer to his property than the previous withdrawn application.
He
expresses concern regarding the fact that excavations are likely to go below
the level of his own raft foundations and that his property has been subject to
subsidence.
He is
concerned that any disturbance may trigger further subsidence causing
irreparable damage to his property.
Other
comments relate to likely impact on his general outlook with particular
reference to attractive woodland and assorted wildlife and the effect that the
three storey high brick wall may have on that outlook.
Isle of
Wight Society object on the grounds that the proposed dwelling will have an
adverse visual impact on the rural area.
They stress that the general street scene is mainly single storey
buildings although the area does have some two/three storey buildings which
blend in with the chalet bungalows. The
proposed buildings for this site will not blend in with that street scene.
One
letter of support received from owner of property which abuts the property
Janarene stating that "development would enhance this very important site
of Gurnard waterfront. Such innovative
designs would be quite nice to see in this area. They also comment that there is a good mixture of properties with
varied designs and stressing that the modern design would add interest to the
Esplanade.
Email
received from resident of Egypt Esplanade objecting as follows.
Proposal will have an unacceptable
impact on the ancient woodland which provides a
green buffer between Gurnard and Cowes.
Proposal
is visually intrusive and would spoil the quality of the area making reference
to existing properties being of a conventional design. Objectors consider that the two higher rise
contemporary houses would not be pleasing to the eye either from the direction
of the land or the sea.
Concern
that other applications may follow and the Esplanade will become irrevocably
spoiled by urban sprawl. Concern that
the proposal will impinge on the character of the SINC.
The neighbouring
property owner (25 Princes Esplanade) has been advised of the submission of the
revised plans and any comments received which relate to this issue will be
reported accordingly.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
This application
although seeking consent for only two units has raised a number of complex
issues with particular regard to ground and slope stability and design
matters. This coupled with the
ecological issues has resulted in considerable delays in bringing these matters
to fruition to enable the application to be considered by Members. I will deal with the matters individually as
follows.
Design/Scale
Members will note
applicants have chosen a contemporary modern approach which the Architect's
Panel did not consider to be inappropriate with their main concerns relating to
detail. It is important to appreciate
that this is the end of a line of properties with it being extremely unlikely
that any further development will be permitted beyond this point. Therefore it could be argued that
development on this land represents a visual stop to this line of mixed
development with many of the units being low profile in appearance. Also most of the units are modern in appearance
apart from the two longstanding bungalows which directly abut the site. Members are reminded that the advice
contained in PPG 1 Annex A which advises that "policies should avoid
unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the
overall scale density mass and height in relation to neighbouring buildings and
the local area more generally".
Members attention
is also drawn to the modern units being constructed opposite Gurnard Green
further to the west with particular reference to the Art Nouveau dwelling which
Members may recall was allowed on appeal.
I consider that the design approach is appropriate in this case given
the site's location and will make an important statement on this edge of
Gurnard.
In terms of scale
the reduction in height and scale of that element which abuts property
'Janarene' has assisted in creating a stepping down of the street scene. This will not only help the street scene
effect but will also reduce any impact on that adjoining property.
Also the two units
have been staggered in terms of their building line in order to reduce the
general impact of scale and prevent the units reading as one single mass. Finally the scale and general mass has to
some extent been dictated by the topography of the site with these dwellings
making best use of sloping land. It is
also important to note that the general impact of the dwellings particularly
when viewed from the north east when approaching from Cowes will be reduced by
the woodland and the level of planting which will take place within the 10
metre buffer strip. This level of
landscaping will provide an effective foreground both to the side and front of
the buildings.
Ground Stability
Members will
appreciate from the length of time which it has taken to resolve this matter
just how complex this issue has proved to be.
The site's location identifies it as a fairly critical area in terms of
ground and slope stability. In this regard
it is the site's location at the tow of the slope which results in it being
important that the structure and particularly the foundations are constructed
to a standard which takes that location into account and provides the support
for the overall slope. The technical
nature of these issues have proved difficult to resolve with the Council's
Consulting Engineer not being entirely satisfied with the solutions being
offered and therefore requiring further information and investigation. The protractive nature of the negotiations
between the engineers is indicative of the care which has been taken to ensure
an appropriate scheme and therefore I am confident that the acceptance of the
scheme ensures that the Council has carried out its best endeavours on this
matter. Again I remind Members that
ultimately it is the developers responsibility and not the Council's
responsibility to ensure safe development and therefore the advice contained in
PPG 14 has been satisfied in this case.
Ecology Issues
Again this issue
with particular regard to dormouse occupation of a small part of the site has
been the subject of an exchange of correspondence and I am satisfied that this
issue has reached the stage where the application can be determined by
Members. At the time of preparing this
report the depth of information still appears to be in doubt as far as English
Nature are concerned and therefore I would recommend that any approval of the
application should Members be mindful to go down that line be subject to no
adverse comments from English Nature which would warrant reconsideration of the
application. I would also suggest that
a letter accompany any approval advising applicants of the need to obtain a
DEFRA licence in terms of the dormouse occupation.
Landscaping
The increase in
width by 2 metres, as described above, whilst effectively solving the problem
of relationship with the existing bungalow has decreased the gap between the
development and the adjacent SINC site.
I have consulted with the Council's Ecology Officer regarding the
implications of this reduced width and whilst not ideal, he raises no
objection. However, it will be an issue
that will need to be covered in the DEFRA licence required by English
Nature. Notwithstanding this, Members'
attention is drawn to the specific condition covering this area requiring the
planting of native species which relate to those which are contained within the
adjoining SINC woodland area. Specialist
advice may need to be obtained in respect of quantity and species to be planted
and indeed careful consideration would need to take place regarding any
existing species in this area of the site which may need protection during the
course of construction. Providing the
landscaping is appropriately carried out I consider that this area will
contribute to the general landscape of Princes Esplanade and in the long term
provide valuable wildlife habitat.
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 other 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 and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
DECISION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in
this report I am satisfied that all
material considerations have been addressed and that the applicants have
taken due account of the prominence and therefore importance of this site on
the edge of Gurnard and its proximity to an ecologically sensitive area. The modern design approach although
considered radical is considered to be acceptable in principal (see Architect's
Panel comments) and therefore now the ground stability issues have been resolved
I am of the opinion that this proposal is acceptable and therefore recommend
accordingly. Important to establish
that this proposal will not set a precedent and increase pressures on further
development in this area. The status of
the woodland as a SINC and also a preserved woodland area provides more than
enough protection from development regardless of the fact that the woodland
area is within the development envelope boundary. This site is the last remaining area of land along Princes
Esplanade which is neither within the SINC or the woodland and therefore in
principal its development is acceptable.
1. RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
Prior
to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of
the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing
road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a
height no greater than 1 metre. Reason:
In the interests of highway
safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for new
development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed
in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light
vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into
use: Footway
Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to
the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for new development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
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. |
|
5 |
Submission of
samples - S03 |
|
6 |
Before
development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the 8
metre buffer strip within the site adjacent to the north eastern
boundary. Such scheme shall reflect
the native species found in the adjacent woodland area (Princes Esplanade
Wood). Such scheme shall specify the
position, species and size of trees and shrubs to be planted and such
approved planting shall be completed prior to occupation of either of the
dwellings hereby approved. All such
planting shall be maintained to encourage its establishment of a minimum of
five years following contractual practical completion of the
development. Any trees or shrubs
which are removed, die or become in the opinion of the Local planning
Authority seriously damaged or defected within this period shall be replaced
before the end of the next planting season. Reason: In the interest
of contributing to the major conservation interests and the amenity of the
area and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) and C8 (Nature
Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Any
scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the
months of August and February and at no other time. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in
compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Before
the development commences a hard landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the surface
treatment of the parking and turning area along with the position, design and
materials of the boundary walls as indicated on the plans hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the
appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order)
(with or without modification), no windows (other than those expressly
authorised by this permission) shall be constructed within the south west
facing elevation of house no.2. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Prior
to the commencement of work detailed plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Local Planning Authority of a 1.8 metre high privacy screen to the second
floor decking at house no.2 as indicated on the plans hereby approved. Such screen shall be erected in accordance
with those approved details prior to occupation of that dwelling. Any such screen shall be retained and
maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
- That letter be sent to applicants advising all foundation work should be
supervised by an appropriate competent engineer preferably the engineer who has
prepared the reports and that such work should be carried out in accordance
with the agreed foundation details.
Applicants
be advised that they need to obtain a DEFRA licence under Habitat Regulations
1994 in respect of dormouse habitat disturbance with that licence being
obtained prior to any commencement of work on site. Any such licence should be accompanied by a method statement
containing details of mitigation and compensation for minimising short and long
term impacts on dormice.
Applicants
be provided with a copy of a letter dated 2 December 2002 from Messrs TRANSCO
and be strongly advised to note the excavation restrictions referred to in that
letter.
|
3. |
TCP/02829/F P/02084/03 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ryde St Johns East Registration
Date: 22/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Mr A J Stant & A C Stant Detached house
with garage; formation of vehicular access rear of 47 &
49 Great Preston Road with access off, Elm Close, Ryde, PO33 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This report is
before the Development Control Committee at the request of the Team Leader due
to the site history of refusals and level of local interest.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
If determined at
this meeting the application will have taken thirteen weeks. The processing of this application has gone
beyond the prescribed eight week period due to the need for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The site is part
of the rear garden of a property located on the south eastern side of Great
Preston Road. The site fronts onto Elm
Close which is a cul-de-sac accessed off Great Preston Road.
No. 47 Great
Present Road is a two storey dwelling, 49 is a bungalow. The area is residential with a mix of
property styles in Great Preston Road and 1950 style semi-detached properties
within Elm Close.
The plot itself is
currently part of the garden for no. 47 Great Preston Road and is surrounded by
2 metre high hedges with small apple trees within the garden; the land gently
slopes down to the north west.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/2829/C -
Outline for dwelling - refused May 1985.
Appeal dismissed February 1986.
TCP/2829/D -
Outline for bungalow - refused August 1985.
Appeal dismissed February 1986.
TCP/2829/E -
Outline for bungalow - refused June 1988.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Full consent
sought for detached house with garage and formation of vehicular access. The plot is 15.2 x 27.3 metres.
The plans show
proposed dwelling as two storey building under a hipped plain tile roof. Elevations are to be finished in artificial
stone with multi-red facing bricks to plinth, quoins and lintels. A single storey element is proposed on the
side elevation (to Elm Close) and conservatory to rear. Accommodation at ground floor provides
lounge, kitchen, dining room, hall, w.c. utility with three bedrooms, en-suite
and bathroom at first floor. There is
an integral garage with access onto Elm Close.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site is within the
development envelope for Ryde. Policies
G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), H5 (Infill Development), D1
(Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development Within the Site) and TR7
(Highway Considerations for New Development) apply.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highways note that
garage is slightly undersized in terms of depth. Suggest conditions if approved.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
None.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Ten letters of
objection from nearby residents which can be summarised as follows:
Increased traffic, congestion, highway safety, limit existing on-street
parking.
Loss of view, outlook, loss of light, loss of privacy.
Precedent.
Effect on environment.
Substantial house detrimental to ambiance of close and not of benefit to
local community.
Inappropriate location, no change since previous refusal only more
cars. Overdevelopment of close -
dominate corner.
Queries vehicular/pedestrian access.
Refers to other approvals granted for rear accesses in Elm Close.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Site is within the
development envelope surrounded by residential property. Determining factors are considered to be
matters of size, visual effects of development, space around the building,
impact on neighbouring property, highway safety considerations and site
history.
In dismissing the
1986 appeal the Inspector noted the main issues were firstly the effect on the
appearance and character of the area and secondly the amenities of neighbours
bearing in mind prevailing policies.
The Inspector was concerned the development would look cramped, that
existing hedgerow would be lost and proposal would set a precedent. He concluded the development would likely be
harmful to the character and appearance of this part of Ryde and would present
overlooking.
PPG3 - Housing,
encourages the best use of urban land and would carry substantial weight in the
determination of this application. To
meet the requirements of PPG3 in terms of density and using urban land more
efficiently will inevitably result in smaller plot sizes. This should not however be at the expense of
neighbouring amenity.
It is considered
that the subdivision of this site to form a new detached dwelling would result
in the creation of adequate garden area for the existing dwelling and
sufficient plot size to accommodate the proposal. It is accepted that the neighbouring dwellings fronting Great
Preston Road have good sized existing rear gardens but the proposal is not considered
alien on this corner plot. There would
still be adequate amenity space and the proposal will relate in terms of site
size more to the properties within Elm Close.
Conditions can be imposed to maintain appropriate boundary treatment.
Matters related to
highway concerns have not been substantiated by the Highway Engineer comments
and the access can be accommodated with minimum impact on amenity of area. The concern relating to loss of outlook and
loss of light and privacy are not considered sustainable due to the distances
involved between the properties. Impact
on the adjacent properties no. 47 and 49 is considered minimal.
The other accesses
referred to in objections were approved in 1999, both serve properties in Great
Preston Road off Elm Close. With regard
precedence, Members will be aware that each case is treated on its merits.
The additional
dwelling in this location results in a compatible form of development and
utilisation of land provides acceptable development in accordance with PPG3
with minimum impact on the character of the area. Notwithstanding previous decisions, current policy considerations
both National and Local would justify and support development of the site.
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 of 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, it is considered proposal conforms with policies in the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan and makes best use of urban land in accordance
with guidance contained in PPG3 (Housing).
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
Construction
of the building 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 |
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. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order)
(with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those
expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In
the interests of the character and 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 building is 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
development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of two parking
spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site
and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To
ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The
access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed
in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light
vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into
use: Footway
Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to
the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Prior
to commencement of the development hereby approved the level of the land
marked green on the attached extract form drawing no. A1-EC-03 shall be
lowered so that the land and any natural growth or structures located on or
within the area 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. |
|
9 |
The
garage hereby permitted shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from
the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4. |
TCP/13058/C P/01970/03 Parish/Name: Sandown
Ward: Sandown South Registration
Date: 20/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr E W Davies Demolition of
building; erection of 7 storey block
of 11 flats; vehicular access 18 Pier Street,
Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368JU |
This application
was considered at the Development Control Committee on 16 December 2003 when
the decision was deferred for further negotiations with the applicant regarding
scale, height and mass of the building, the design, the possibility of carrying
out a comprehensive development including the land immediately adjoining to the
south west and the inclusion of at least an element of commercial or tourism
use within the development.
The applicant, who
was present at the Committee meeting has been approached with Members'
observations and has responded requesting the application to be determined in
its submitted form.
In support of his
request his observations have been submitted in the form of a letter which is
appended to this report.
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is
a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be
resolved.
PERFORMANCE
INFORMATION
If determined at
this meeting, this application will have been determined in fifteen weeks, the
delay being attributable to the previous deferment and negotiations.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
An almost square
shaped site of 0.04 hectares formerly a hotel, bar and residential
accommodation located on the Esplanade at Sandown at the bottom of Pier Street,
just to the south of Sandown Pier. The
site was formerly known as Trubshaws and comprises a partially derelict building
adjoining the north side of "Zanies".
The existing
building covers virtually 100% of the site and is flanked by buildings of two,
three and four storeys and abuts a cliff face on its north western side. Both of the adjoining buildings are flat
roofed but beyond, towards the southwest is Napoleons Landing which varies
between four and ten storeys, increasing to the south.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Full planning
permission was granted for the demolition of the building and erection of a
five storey block of eight flats including vehicular access and covered parking
in December 2002.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
A revised scheme
for redevelopment of this site has been submitted, seeking permission for
eleven flats in a seven storey block.
The plans show the
building, in plan form, to comprise car parking on ground floor in the form of
four spaces directly accessed off Pier Street leading to a further five car
parking spaces served by turntable. In
addition the ground floor incorporates pedestrian access in the south end of
the frontage leading to a stairwell and lift area.
Plans show
building to comprise two flats per floor with the exception of the sixth floor
which contains a single flat. Each flat
contains living room, kitchen, bathroom and either two or three bedrooms, some
of the lower floors have bedrooms which are lit by a light well from roof
ground floor providing light and ventilation to some rooms which would
otherwise be internal. Top floor
contains balcony on three sides.
Elevations show
building to be constructed in buff brick work with some cream rendering with
stone window heads and band courses.
Roof to be essentially curved in similar form to Napoleons Landing, clad
in a standing seam profiled sheeting yet to be agreed.
A street scene of
the Esplanade shows the proposed building in relation to the Bayshore Hotel
immediately adjoining to the north, the disused nightclub (Zanies) and the
development known as Napoleons Landing.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
This site is
located within the development envelope; outside but adjoining the hotel policy
area.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommends conditions if approved.
The Architects'
Panel considered the proposals and commented that:-
It was noted that
the building has an additional two storeys compared with that previously
approved and although noting that the top storey was set back, Members of the
Panel felt that a reduction in height by one storey may be more
appropriate. Members of the Panel felt
that the vertical emphasis in the current design was better than that over the
previously approved plans and pointed out that the side elevations would be
prominent but generally indicated that the scheme was probably acceptable.
Sandown Town
Council raised no objection.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of
objection from local residents on grounds of excessive height.
Further letter of
objection from adjoining property owner objecting to the height of the building
and on grounds that the building would overlook his/her property situated to
the rear.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer
has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received.
EVALUATION
The property
formerly known as Trubshaws has been used most recently as a pub and restaurant
but in the last few years has remained unused although some refurbishment work
has been carried out. The site is
outside of the hotel policy area as demonstrated in the last permission being
granted in December 2002.
A five storey
block of eight flats was approved at that time and therefore the residential
redevelopment of this site is, in principle, acceptable.
Access and parking
arrangements in the current scheme are similar to those of the previous scheme
in as much as access is proposed directly off the Pier Street frontage. In this instance additional parking is
proposed by way of a turntable within the building; four car parking spaces are
accessible directly off Pier Street much as before. The Highway Engineer recommends conditions to the current scheme.
The determining
factor therefore is considered to be design, visual impact and, more
specifically, the height of the building and the effect of this development in
context with neighbouring properties.
The height of the
building has been increased by two floors over that which was approved
previously; it includes an additional three flats and therefore the density has
been increased but is one which is compatible with Napoleons Landing. Napoleons Landing reaches ten floors at its
highest point, stepping down towards Zanies, a redevelopment of which has been
approved at a height compatible with the northern block in Napoleons
Landing.
The current
proposal would increase the height to seven storeys and in my view almost
balances the Napoleons Landing development.
It is understood that the redevelopment of Zanies was limited in overall
height due to the existence of a covenant, a restriction which apparently does
not apply to this site. Bearing in mind
the land at the rear of this site and Napoleons Landing is considerably higher
being the end of the cliff line which diminishes to a point commensurate with
the pier, I do not think that this block, as shown, would be out of place.
I concur with the
Architects Panel that the current scheme is attractive and would add that its
style reflects that of Napoleons Landing more closely than the scheme approved
before. In summary I consider the new proposal to be acceptable despite the
increase in height by two floors.
Finally, part of
the submission on the previous application included a geological report of the
replacement of the building with another in relation to the cliff
stability. The report concluded with
several recommendations regarding construction and soil retention but no suggestion
of cliff instability which might warrant withholding planning permission. However, the planning permission granted in
December 2002 for the five storey block did not include any conditions
requiring the submission of a geotechnical or structural stability report but
an informative letter was sent out with the decision notice drawing attention
to the question of ground stability and the requirements of Planning Policy
Guidance Note 14 (Development on Unstable Land).
One of the
applicant's reasons for justifying the additional storeys of development and
additional flats is the ability of the scheme to afford a new retaining wall to
stabilise the cliff at the rear and prevent a further possibility of
damage. Members may be aware that
similar provision needed to be made at the rear of Napoleons Landing in order
to ensure cliff stabilisation in connection with that development. Under the circumstances it is felt that
similar steps should be taken in this instance and an informative letter sent
to the applicant to ensure that matters relating to cliff stability and the
provision of the retaining structure are carried out before any development
commences on site.
FURTHER EVALUATION
Essentially
Members deferred determination of the application as they were not happy with
the design and appearance of the building, its height in relation to adjoining
development, the fact that the proposal did not include any element of tourism
or commercial uses and that the
possibility of
comprehensive development should be explored, including the land immediately
adjoining to the south west, where consent exists for six town houses.
In terms of the
design, including height, scale and mass, Members may appreciate that the
Architects Panel, in considering this proposal, felt that the scheme was one
storey too high, but that the submitted design was an improvement upon that
which gained planning permission in December 2002. Whilst the development has been increased in height by two
floors, it is pointed out that Napoleons Landing comprises of development with
a maximum of ten storeys and incorporates features of a very similar nature to
those of Napoleons Landing and although the Bayshore Hotel immediately
adjoining to the north east is two floors lower, it is felt that the contrast
between the two is not of sufficient magnitude so as to warrant refusal.
The tourism policy
area as designated in the Sandown inset of the UDP clearly excludes this site,
the adjoining site (known as Zanies) and the Napoleons Landing site. There is, therefore, no policy support to
insist on the inclusion of a tourism or commercial element in the
development. Indeed the site already
has a valid permission for residential development, dated December 2002 which
included no commercial or tourism element.
To include such an element would mean that the ground floor access and
parking provision would be lost.
Before the
application was submitted the applicant had discussions with the owner of the
adjoining site to the south west with a view to submitting a comprehensive
redevelopment but it is understood that the adjoining property owner is still
investigating the possibility of his redevelopment and the implications of a
restrictive covenant concerning the height of the building. It is not anticipated that any resolution
will be forthcoming for some considerable time and therefore the delay will be
considerable. Although discussions have
taken place the applicant has concluded that he is unlikely to be successful in
persuading the adjoining owner to participate in a comprehensive development
and wishes to proceed with the development of his own site only.
Bearing in mind
the previous permission for a five storey block of eight flats on this site
without any commercial or tourism element and the design comparisons with
adjoining properties, I remain of the opinion that the proposal is satisfactory
and adhere to my previous recommendation for approval.
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 of 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 the material considerations as discussed in
the Evaluation section above, the redevelopment of the site as proposed is
considered to be consistent with policies D1 and D2, H1, H5 and H6 of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
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 |
The
access and crossing of the highway or footway shall be constructed in
accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light
vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into
use: Footway
Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to
the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The
access shall not be brought into use until facilities are provided within the
curtilage of the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in
forward gear in accordance with the approved plans. This facility shall thereafter always be kept available for
such use. Reason: In
the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
vehicle turntable hereby approved shall be kept in operational order at all
times in line with the manufacturers guidelines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
6 |
The
development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has
been made within the site for the secure and covered parking of a minimum of
eleven bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of ‘Sheffield’
hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,
and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To
ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with
Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
No
dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in
accordance with drawing no. 1-01-10 attached for cars to be parked. Reason:
To ensure adequate off-street
parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Garage
doors - K2 |
|
9 |
No
garage doors or shutters shall be installed in front of spaces 1 - 4 without
the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any such shutters or doors to be erected
shall be of the roller shutter type to ensure that no projection over the
public highway results. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Glass
blocks/glazing to be installed in the rear (northwest) elevation of the
building shall be of obscured glass. Reason: To protect the
privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5. |
TCP/13631/C P/01974/03 Parish/Name: Newport
Ward: Mount Joy Registration
Date: 08/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: The Eaton Partnership Two storey
building to provide four flats; vehicular access and parking, (revised
scheme) land adjacent
17-18, Winchester Close, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested
by local Member, Councillor Shirley Smart, who is of the opinion that the
proposed development would, by reason of its scale, adversely affect the
character of the area and in particular be detrimental to the setting of
adjacent Listed Buildings.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which has taken fifteen weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone
beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning
applications because of on-going negotiations and the need for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Site is situated
on the northern side of Winchester Close, approximately 35 metres east of its
junction with Linden Road. The site was
previously used as garden area to no. 97 but has now been fenced off. It is rectangular in shape measuring some 18.5
metres wide at the front widening to some 20 metres at the back with depth in
the region of 23 metres. The site has a
slight fall towards the rear. Although
Winchester Close is characterised by modern development comprising of flats and
semi-detached houses, both adjacent properties at 97 and 99 Castle Road are
Grade II Listed Buildings but of quite different character. No.97 is directly to the rear and comprises
of a rendered cottage whereas 99 is finished in timber cladding and situated
immediately to the west.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/13631A/P00970/99
- Outline for two semi-detached houses with parking and access off Winchester
Close. Consent granted 7 March 2000.
TCP/13631B/P00076/03
- Two-storey building to provide five flats including one flat within roof
space and parking; formation of vehicular access. Refused 10 March 2003 for the following reason:
"The
proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing and overall appearance
would adversely affect the character of the area and in particular be
detrimental to the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings compromising their
character and quality. Consequently the
proposal is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B2 (Settings of
Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan."
This application
is currently subject of an appeal.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought
for a "T" shaped two-storey building providing four two bedroom
flats. The building is shown to be
constructed partly of buff brick and partly of white painted render under a
hipped natural slate roof. Plans show
four parking spaces off Winchester Close.
The proposed
building would be situated some 6 metres from the northern (rear) boundary, 2
metres from the eastern boundary and 5 metres from the western boundary.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
PPG3 (Housing)
encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities
while also stressing the need for good design in new housing developments in
order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people
will choose to live.
Site is situated
within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight
Unitary Plan Development Plan (UDP).
Relevant policies are as follows:
S1 -
New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S6 -
All developments will be expected to be of a high standard of design.
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 -
General Locational Criteria for Development.
D1 -
Standards of Design.
D2 -
Standards for Development within the Site.
B2 -
Settings of Listed Buildings.
H4 - Unallocated
Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements.
H5 -
Infill Development.
TR16 -
Parking Policies and Guidelines.
Reference is also
made to the Housing Needs Survey which identifies among other needs a demand
for smaller two and three bedroom homes.
The site is
located within parking zone 3 of the UDP where parking provision 0 - 75% of the
non-operational requirement applies.
The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom, therefore, current
proposal would attract maximum parking provision for six vehicles.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommends conditional approval.
The Council's
Conservation Officer is of the opinion that the latest proposal has
significantly improved the scale and design of the building and would therefore
relate better to the nearby Listed Buildings.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Application has
been subject of six letters of objection from Winchester Close residents. Points raised are summarised as follows:
Would
dominate both adjoining Listed Buildings.
Proposed
materials are out of context.
The
visual impact of this development would outweigh any benefits to the housing
stock.
Inadequate
parking.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The principle of
residential development on this site is considered to be acceptable as it
clearly represents an ideal brownfield area of land being situated within the
development envelope for Newport.
Members will note that there is planning history pertaining to this
site. Firstly, an outline consent for a
pair of semi-detached houses that has now expired and secondly, a recent
application for five flats refused on grounds of excessive scale and mass and
that this would be detrimental to the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.
The determining
factor in respect of this application is whether the latest proposal
satisfactorily overcomes the previous reason for refusal, with particular
emphasis on scale, mass, design and relationship of the development with
adjoining Listed Buildings.
The refused scheme
included a flat in the roof space which would have resulted in a far higher,
steeper and bulkier cropped gabled roof.
The plans now under consideration show a building reduced in height by
some 2 metres under a fully hipped and relatively shallow pitched roof. The Council's Conservation Officer is of the
opinion that this has significantly improved the scale and design of the
building and that it would therefore relate better to the nearby Listed
Buildings. The proposed building has
been articulated which again helps to reduce the overall scale and mass. The result being a building that, in my
opinion, does not compete with the appearance or setting of either nearby
Listed Building. In terms of the actual
design, the Conservation Officer was largely happy with the scheme as first
submitted. However, one or two minor
concerns relating to the proposed window arrangement have been addressed through
the submission of revised plans.
Concern has been
expressed that the proposed materials are out of context. The submitted plans indicate a mix of render
and buff brickwork. This is an attempt
to relate the proposal to the rendered Listed Building behind and a modern
semi-detached building to the east. I
believe that the proposed use of materials offers a successful transition
between two different types of treatment on adjoining buildings and therefore
consider the proposal to be in keeping with the locality.
In terms of
parking provision, the proposal for one space per flat on this zone 3 site is
considered to comply with the Council's parking guidelines as detailed in the
UDP.
To conclude, it is
my opinion that the proposed development strikes a balance between making
efficient use of land whilst at the same time retaining sufficient space about
buildings, preserving the setting of adjoining Listed Buildings and avoiding a
cramped appearance in the street scene.
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 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 and in
the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this
report, I am of the opinion that the previous concern relating to scale, mass
and design have been satisfactorily addressed so that the proposed development
would sit harmoniously alongside both adjoining Listed Buildings and into the
street scene in general. I therefore
consider that the proposal is acceptable and therefore complies with policies
contained in the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION - Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years
from the date of this permission. Reason:
To comply with Section 91 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Notwithstanding
the details shown on drawing no. 2174/16/03 Rev.A, a full specification of
the proposed windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
Development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in
accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests
of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The
first floor bathroom windows in the south west and north east elevations
shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass. Reason: In the interests
of the privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Before
the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details
of other hard surfacing 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. |
|
6 |
The
landscaping scheme shall be completed within six months from the substantial
completion of the building shell, or such other date as may be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees or plants which die during the first five years shall be
replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To
ensure that the landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the
appearance of the development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The
two first floor windows in the south west elevation serving bedroom 2 and
kitchen shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests
of the privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The
building shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been
constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to
the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The
access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed
in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority before
the development hereby approved is completed. Reason:
To ensure adequate access to
the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6. |
TCP/14470/Z P/02216/03 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ashey Registration
Date: 12/11/2003 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mrs S Georgiou Demolition of
east wing (18 Upton Road) of Southfield;
outline for residential development of 14 houses with parking &
vehicular access, (revised description and address), (readvertised
application) land between
Node Close and Rotary Court and north of, Southfield Gardens, Ryde, PO33 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application has
proved particularly contentious raising a number of issues that warrant
Committee consideration.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a major
application, the processing of which has taken ten weeks to date, and therefore
a determination of this application at this meeting will comply with the
thirteen week target period laid down for dealing with major planning
applications.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Generally
overgrown irregular shaped site immediately east to the cul de sac head of Node
Close, west of Rotary Court and north of Southfield Gardens. The Close itself is a cul de sac having a curved
alignment consisting of a series of bends terminating in a cul de sac head and
providing some elements of parking areas.
There is a mixture of modern and established residential development
consisting of eight detached dwellings, five terraced units and three blocks of
twelve flats with its own parking area being Rotary Court, accessed off Node
Close on its western side. It also
serves a large detached established property known as Southfield. The western half of this established
property in the form of flatted accommodation (5a, 5b and 7 Node Close) whilst
the eastern half (18 Upton Road) is in the form of a single dwelling. Site generally slopes from north to
south.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Consent
granted in April 1991 for a detached house and garage within the former grounds
of Southfield Hall. This consent has
been implemented being property 18A Upton Road located adjacent flatted
development Rotary Court and east of Southfield House.
Outline
consent granted March 1988 for five terraced houses with that consent being
subsequently renewed in December 1990.
That approval was allowed to lapse, however a subsequent resubmission
was approved in May 1994. This consent
related to southern area of the current application site where it abuts
Southfield Gardens.
In
January 1999 detailed consent granted for three pairs of semi-detached houses
with parking which involved the extension of the existing road and footpath,
again relating to the southern area of the current application site.
March
2000 detailed consent granted for demolition of part of Southfield and further
two pairs of semi-detached houses within the area of the current application
site consisting of the demolished east wing of Southfield House and land to the
south of that area.
Both the above
mentioned latter approvals involved the eastward extension of Node Close which
included realignment of the existing cul de sac head to provide parking bay for
two vehicles.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Outline consent
sought for the principle of residential development of this site in the form of
a total of fourteen two-storey dwellings consisting of two terraces of three
dwellings and eight semi-detached dwellings.
Proposal seeks siting and means of access to be considered at the same
time.
Application provides
for the demolition of the east wing of Southfield House and the construction of
a terrace of three between the remaining part of Southfield House (5a, 5b and 7
Node Close) and modern detached property 18A Upton Road. Remaining terrace of three being located to
the south being on the northern side of the extended Node Close.
Six of the eight
semi-detached properties to be located in the southern half of the site
adjacent the existing terrace of five units.
These units to have a north south aspect. Remaining pair to have an east west aspect located adjacent the
eastern boundary.
Proposal indicates
the extension of Node Close with cul de sac head serving eleven of the fourteen
units. Rumble strip indicated at the
point of entry into the site. New
extended cul de sac has a total of
sixteen parking spaces which relates to eleven of the fourteen units. The remaining three units provided with
three parking spaces and turning area accessed towards the north, again off
Node Close. Proposal provides for an
average of 1.3 parking spaces per unit.
Application has
been accompanied by some illustrative house type plans which includes a
proposal for a three-storey terrace of three houses where that terrace abuts
property Southfield. Applicant has
included plans and elevations of these house types as illustrative information
only to assist in assessing the merits of the application.
Applicant has made
reference to the fact that the site already has full planning approval for ten
houses, however in line with national advice this proposal has intensified the
development to increase density in accordance with those guidelines.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
National policies
covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000.
Relevant issues as follows:
Provide
wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size type and
location of housing.
Give
priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take
pressures off development of greenfield sites.
Create
more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public
transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping, etc.
Make
more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty to
fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density with even
greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public
transport accessibility such as town centres.
More
than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect
Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.
New
housing should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to the
immediate buildings and the wider locality and should not compromise the
quality of the environment.
Relevant local
plan/policies are as follows:
Strategic
policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.
Other relevant
policies are as follows:
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages
G4 -
General Locational Criteria for Development
D1 -
Standards of Design
D2 -
Standards for Development Within the Site
H4 - Unallocated
Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development
TR16 -
Parking Policies and Guidelines
U11 -
Infrastructure and Services Provision
Reference is also
made to recent Housing Need Survey. The
main conclusions of which denies a need for single person accommodation
although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two/three bedroom homes to
meet statutory homeless requirements.
Site is located
within parking zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a
maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. Guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Within this zone the site is not subject of
transport infrastructure payment.
In terms of
affordable housing proposal is less than 15 units and therefore is not subject
of the need to provide an element of affordable housing.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
has expressed concerns regarding this proposal with particular regard to the
level of visibility at the junction between Node Close and Upton Road with the
main concern being that the increase in traffic flows which may result from a
further four units would be unacceptable and create hazards to highway users.
He offers four
possible solutions to the problem as follows:
Applicant
carry out traffic speed survey to establish whether speed in Upton Road is
sufficiently low to ensure that existing limited visibility onto Upton Road is
acceptable and also carry out accurate measurements of the visibility currently
available.
Create
improved visibility onto Upton Road by including adjoining garden land either
side which would obviously involve land outside control of applicant.
Highway
Engineer's department consider alternative would be to realign the junction of
Node Close utilising the wide area of footway on the western side of the access
road. This will create a wider footway
on the eastern side and improve visibility to the east. Although no obvious improvement is
immediately available to visibility in a westerly direction, slightly
repositioning the "give way lines" as part of the scheme may provide
some improvement.
Suggestion
that applicant make a financial contribution towards junction improvements as
part of a larger scheme already proposed by the Highway Traffic Section in the
Haylands area.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Application has
been the subject of 26 signature petition from 16 households in Node Close with
subject matter of petition being summarised as follows:
Proposal
represents excessive density incompatible with the surrounding area resulting
in a cramped development.
Proposal
will detract from the existing environment enjoyed by the neighbourhood and
impinges on the existing open character of development in the area.
Area
has severe ground stability problems, a fact not recognised by the applicant,
there being no engineer's report accompanying the application.
Site is
not deemed to be a brownfield site but a pleasant landscape wooded area and
therefore inappropriate for this density of development.
Nodes
Close already has severe inadequacies in terms of its construction and
particularly in lacking footpath provision.
Proposal
will generate excessive traffic flows causing hazards to highway users with
particular reference to pedestrians and elderly residents of Rotary Court.
Application has
also been the subject of 16 individual letters of objection, 15 from residents
of Node Close and 1 from adjoining property owner 18A Upton Road.
Following
represents points raised additional to those covered in the petition.
There
are changes in level across the site which will need some supporting
structures.
Particular
reference made to the poor quality of construction of Node Close which would be
exacerbated by any additional traffic.
Number
of objectors consider the suggested proposal for a three-storey terrace would
be inappropriate with particular concern from the neighbouring property 18A who
would be affected by such a height of building.
Concern
that drainage provision has not been addressed adequately with particular
reference to inappropriateness of use of soakaways within a clay strata.
Proposal
will result in loss of trees affecting wildlife habitat with particular
reference to red squirrels.
Proposal
will create added noise disturbance with particular reference to elderly
residents of Rotary Court.
Demolition
of east wing of Southfield House will result in the unnecessary loss of a good
quality building.
Proposal
provides insufficiency of parking which will result in undue pressures on
on-street parking causing dangers to pedestrians and other road users and
creating access problems.
Insufficient
access for emergency vehicles.
One letter of
support received from local resident of St Michael's Avenue with points raised
summarised as follows:
Proposal
is within requirements of PPG3 making efficient use of urban land providing a
mixed community.
If
current application is unacceptable in terms of traffic movement site provides
an opportunity for a one way system from the top of Node Close and/or
Southfield Gardens to St Michael's Avenue.
The
development site has been the subject of antisocial behaviour in the recent
past, a fact that can be confirmed by the police.
Proposal
provides an opportunity to provide safe convenient route to Ryde High School
for local children.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Principle
The principle of
developing this site is firmly based evidenced by the two extant detail
approvals for a total of ten two-storey semi-detached dwellings. These extant consents represent a major
material consideration in assessing the merits of this application.
Also the site can
be defined as a brownfield site within the development envelope boundary on the
urban fringes of Ryde. The area
generally is characterised by established and more modern medium density
development providing a variety of dwellings ranging from older narrow fronted
semi-detached to modern terraces and detached.
It is important to
appreciate that this is an outline application with the main planning
considerations being whether or not the increase to 14 units is acceptable in
terms of density with particular regard to effect on the general character of
the locality, impact on nearby residential occupiers and issues relating to
generation of traffic with particular regard to adequacy of Node Close and its
junction with Upton Road.
Density
In pure density
terms this proposal increases the density from 38.5 units per hectare in
respect of the ten approved dwellings to 54 units per hectare in respect of the
fourteen units now being proposed. This
may appear to represent a significant increase, however a direct comparison
with the approved layout and the current proposal indicates that two of the
four additional units have been achieved by replacing two pairs of
semi-detached properties with two terraces of three properties resulting in a
relatively modest increase in footprint size.
The remaining two additional units are those which have an east west
aspect located well within the site and provide a visual stop to the extended
cul de sac.
The test of any
development should not be related to the calculated density but whether or not
the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationship between the
proposed blocks and in relation to effect on adjoining properties and the
visual effect on the area in general.
There is a general acceptance that efficient use of urban land will
inevitably result in dwellings being on smaller plots than has previously been
the case. Not surprisingly this scheme
is no exception to that maxim. Finally
an approximate calculation of overall density in terms of dwellings which are
served off Node Close indicate that the existing development plus the ten
approved dwellings would result in an overall density of approximately 27.5
units per hectare with the additional four units increasing that density to
approximately 31 units per hectare.
Impact
Impact on the
immediate character of Node Close itself represents a good example of mixed
development ranging from detached dwellings to flatted development. In detail Node Close serves following:
Detached
houses - 8 no.
Terraced
houses - 5 no.
Flats - 15 no. (including Rotary
Court).
Total - 28 no.
Whilst I
appreciate the concerns being expressed by Node Close residents I suggest the
introduction of eight semi-detached and six terraced units would not represent
development out of character with the area but would simply contribute to the
mix of development in the area.
Whilst application
has been accompanied by house type plans and elevations these are for
illustrative purposes only and are not before Members for detailed
consideration. They do, however,
suggest general height and scale of dwellings and how they are likely to sit
into the general topography of the site.
In this regard the applicant appears to have used the levels
appropriately. The only major issue
with regard to type of dwellings is the introduction of a terrace of three
three-storey dwellings as a replacement for the demolished east wing of the
existing Southfield property.
Unfortunately the illustrative plans do not relate the proposed
three-storey terraced block with the height, mass and scale of the existing
Southfield property, however principle of an appropriately designed block
directly adjacent to Southfield of this type of height and scale would, in my
opinion, compliment that existing property which in itself is a property of
some character containing a number of architectural features and of a mass and
height typical of Victorian dwellings of this style.
Whilst it is
regrettable that part of the existing Southfield property is to be demolished
the east wing is to some extent the poor relation to the main Southfield
property and in any event the property is unlisted and no reasonable objection
can be raised to this aspect of the development. In any event one of the extant consents has already accepted the
loss of the east wing.
In general whilst
the illustrative plans have been useful in assessing the general theme of
development I consider that in design and architectural appearance terms they
are below the standard that would be expected in respect of this site and if
Members are mindful to approve the application a letter to this effect should
be sent to the applicant.
The arrangement of
dwellings in relation to immediate neighbouring properties are considered to be
acceptable with there being a reasonable space and distance from those existing
properties. Concerns of neighbouring
property owner regarding the proposed three-storey terraced block are noted but
again I consider the distance is sufficient to overcome any immediate visual or
environmental impact and in any event this is an outline application and care
would need to be taken at the detail stage on issues of loss of privacy etc
with careful consideration to the internal arrangement and mass and scale of
that block.
Highway
Considerations
The concerns raised
by the Highway Engineer have some considerable significance and will need to be
weighed against the general requirement to make efficient use of urban land to
take pressures off greenfield sites and therefore create higher densities,
however not at the expense of cramped development. Given that the general layout and arrangement of dwellings are
considered to be acceptable and rather than recommend refusal to this
application on the only ground that the access of Node Close onto Upton Road is
inadequate in visibility terms, I have requested the Highway Engineer to give
serious consideration to the final two options suggested in his comments.
It will be noted
that the fourteen units being proposed does not generate provision of
affordable housing and the site's location within zone 3 of the parking zone
policy does not generate any contribution towards transport infrastructure
funds.
I therefore
consider that these concerns of the Highway Engineer provides an opportunity
for this development to generate a financial contribution which will assist in
the funding of a larger road improvement scheme in the area of Haylands. I would therefore suggest that this would be
a reasonable approach satisfying the test which would be applied to such a
request. The tests relate to necessity,
relevance to planning, relevance to the development to be permitted,
enforceability and being reasonable in all other respects. The actual amount of the payment is not
known at this stage but will be available at the time of the meeting.
Secondly, I would
suggest the imposition of a Grampian condition requiring the suggested
realignment of the junction of Node Close with Upton Road prior to any other
work commencing. (For information a
Grampian condition is a condition which may be applied to a planning permission
restricting implementation until certain works are undertaken on land which is
not within the immediate control of the applicant such as off site highway
improvements.)
It should be noted
that the Highway Engineer is not raising any concerns regarding any additional
traffic use for Node Close itself with the junction of Node Close to Upton Road
being his only concern.
With regard to the
concerns being expressed by Node Close resident, only three of the four additional
units will need to make use of the entire length of Node Close with the
remaining unit being accessed off a very short length of Node Close to its
junction with Upton Road. I certainly
do not consider that any increase in traffic would be such as to represent
sufficient reason to refuse the application.
In terms of
parking spaces proposal indicates approximately 50% of guidelines well within
the maximum 75% required in zone 3.
Indeed the number of parking spaces being indicated is approximately the
same as that being indicated for the 10 units.
Obviously likely level of car ownership in relation to size of property
cannot be predicted, however a dictating factor will always be the level of
parking available. Government policy is
to reduce parking provision hence their policy of 1.5 spaces per unit. Members will appreciate that this is a
difficult policy to promote, however it is the statutory policy within the
Unitary Development Plan and the applicant in this case is complying with that
policy.
It is accepted
that the parking layout as submitted is not the most inspired or efficient and
could be revisited to both achieve more parking and a better contribution to
the hard and soft landscaping of this development. I suggest that this would be a matter that could be dealt with at
the detail stage and be flagged up as a condition. One other factor which needs to be considered is the relatively
short walking distance to Upton Road, being one of the main thoroughfares into
Ryde and therefore providing easy access to a bus route.
The existing
alignment of Node Close creates its own traffic calming. A relatively minor development at the end of
Node Close being proposed would be designed in the form of a shared surface
with the applicant indicating a rumble strip as a traffic calming feature in
itself.
The concerns of
local residents are noted, however this type of road layout where traffic
speeds are severely restricted through road alignment and other traffic calming
features is commonly used and evidence suggests that these represent a safe
environment particularly for pedestrians.
Studies have been carried out which concluded that shared surface roads
were accident free and the majority of residents who live within such shared
surface roads appreciate the visual character of their surroundings and did not
see safety of pedestrians as a problem.
Ground
Stability/Drainage
Whilst ground
stability is a material consideration in respect of planning, in this case it
would only be critical if it could be proved that the land was likely to be
incapable of supporting any development.
Again I refer to the extant consents at which time this issue was not
raised and given that there are a number of modern developments in the area
this suggests that ground conditions whilst possibly being difficult do not
make it impossible for development to take place. In any event ground conditions and foundations are matters which
would be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage and appropriate steps
would be taken to counteract the clay soil conditions.
With regard to
drainage, the criticism in respect of use of soakaways are noted with
particular reference again to the clay strata.
It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application and I
suggest that the issue of drainage both foul and storm water can be covered by
an appropriate condition requiring drainage schemes to be submitted prior to
any other work commencing with such schemes providing evidence that there is
sufficient capacity within existing drainage systems in the area to accept any
additional flows and that full consultation with relevant agencies have taken
place.
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 of 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 as described in
the evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that given that this is an
outline application establishing principle of residential development in the
form of fourteen units is acceptable and all numerous issues have been
addressed with the proposal complying with all relevant statutory policies
represents efficient use of urban land without being cramped in appearance. The highway concerns both raised by local
residents and the Highway Engineer have been adequately addressed both within
the Evaluation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Subject to a
Section 106 Planning Obligation requiring a financial contribution of an amount
to be agreed towards junction improvements as part of a larger highway
improvement scheme for the Haylands area.)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
outline - A01 |
|
2 |
Time limit -
reserved - A02 |
|
3 |
Approval
of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s) 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 |
Details of
roads, etc, design and constr - J01 |
|
5 |
Timing of
occupation - J11 |
|
6 |
Traffic
calming - J03 |
|
7 |
Fourteen
dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid
out within the site in accordance with detailed plans submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority for a maximum of 21 cars to be
parked and for vehicles to be loaded and unloaded to turn so that they may
enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
Space shall not thereafter be used for any purposes other than that
approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In
the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway
Considerations) and TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Prior
to occupation of any of the plots 1 to 11 inclusive, the 3 no. layby parking
spaces opposite 20 and 22 Node Close, as indicated on the plan hereby
approved, shall be completed and ready for use and such parking spaces shall
be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure
replacement of a casual parking provision similar to the existing parking
provision within Node Close and to discourage on-street parking in compliance
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
9 |
A
parking area and open space management plan, including management
responsibilities and maintenance schedules, in respect of the communal
parking area in respect of plots 1 to 11 inclusive and the open space area
between plots 8 and 9 indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
occupation of any part of the development.
The parking area and open space area management plan shall be carried
out as approved. Reason: In the interest
of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development
Order) 1995, (or any order revoking an reenacting that order with or without
modification) no development of any kind shall be carried out within three
metres of Southfield Gardens without the prior written approval of the Local
Planning Authority. Reason: To allow for
future road improvements and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Plots
12, 13 and 14 shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access serving
these dwellings has been constructed in accordance with plans to be submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure
adequate access to proposed development in compliance with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
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 dwellings hereby permitted 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. |
|
13 |
Development
shall not begin until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority indicating the realignment of the junction of
Node Close with Upton Road. Such
scheme shall utilise the wide area of the footway on the western side of the
access road creating a wider footway on the eastern side and shall provide
for the repositioning of the "give way" lines. No other development shall commence until
the scheme has been fully implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest
of highway safety and to achieve visibility improvements to the east of the
junction of Node Close with Upton Road to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
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 and
surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the
system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation
measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the
existing system. None of the
dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such agreed systems have
been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and
storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with
Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION - Letter be sent to
applicants advising that the design and appearance as indicated on the
illustrative plans and elevations of the various house types submitted with the
application are not considered of an appropriate standard with particular
reference to the design and appearance of the terrace of three units adjacent
the property Southfields.
|
7. |
TCP/16327/J P/01986/03 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ryde St Johns West Registration
Date: 08/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Wise Homes Four storey
block of 8 flats with parking area land adjoining 44, West Hill Road, Ryde,
PO33 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application
relates to a development which has been the subject of recent refusals and one
dismissal on appeal, being particularly contentious and raising a number of
issues, all of which require Committee determination.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a minor
application the processing of which has taken fifteen weeks to date and has
gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications
due to Case Officer workload.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Site located on
eastern side of West Hill Road between two substantial Victorian dwellings
sub-divided into flats. Vehicular
access to site is to the north of no. 44 West Hill Road. Site rises up from the road accommodating a
stone and brick front boundary wall.
Abutting the southern boundary of main part of the site is property no.
46 West Hill Road being a substantial four storey Victorian house converted
into flats onto which has been constructed a substantial extension on its
southern side. This property has a
total of seven windows within its north facing elevation facing the application
site. The main element of the site
between no. 44 and 46 is in the form of a gap of approximately 14 metres.
The property 44
West Hill Road which essentially stands between the two elements of the site
which both form the access and on which the proposed development is to take
place, is a further Victorian dwelling converted into eight flats. The curtilage of the site then swings to the
rear of this property providing access to the eastern area of the main element
of the site. The remaining eastern area
is in the form of an existing parking area which serves no. 44 West Hill
Road. Beyond to the east is a
substantial treed area of open space being St. Johns Park. The frontage parking area which serves no.
46 West Hill Road extends in part across the frontage of the application site.
Opposite the site
on the western side of West Hill Road is more modern development characterised
in the main by chalet-style bungalows whereas the eastern side is characterised
by large Victorian buildings, most of which have been converted into flats and
some of which have substantial extensions providing further flatted
accommodation. Within that overall
street scene there are gaps between the properties of varying widths providing
views of the woodland to the east.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/16327/D -
Eight flats in a four storey extension on southern side of 44 West Hill Road,
approved January 1989.
TCP/16327/E -
Conversion of 44 West Hill Road from two living units into four self-contained
flats, approved June 1989.
TCP/16327/F - Four
storey block of eight flats and car parking adjacent 44 West Hill Road, approved
November 1989.
TCP/16327/G -
Proposed four storey block of eight flats with parking area on land between 44
and 46 West Hill Road, refused February 2002 for the following reasons:
The proposed development by reason of its position, size and mass would represent
an overdevelopment of the site and result in development which would be out of
keeping with both the character of the locality, and adjoining buildings would
therefore be contrary to policies D1 and D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.
Site lies within a Conservation Area and the proposal would result in a
loss of a visually significant space between existing properties and would
conflict with the Local Planning Authority's intention to protect and enhance
the character and amenities of such areas and would therefore be contrary to
Policy B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
The above refusal
was contrary to Officer recommendation and was subject of an appeal which was
dismissed in November 2002.
TCP/16327/H - Four
storey block of eight flats with parking area land adjoining 44 West Hill Road,
refused March 2003.
The above refusal
related to a block of reduced width thus increasing gap to adjoining property
no. 46 West Hill Road. Reason for
refusal was similar to that in respect of TCP/16327/G but included an added
reference to the creation of "..... conditions likely to give rise to a
loss of outlook and disturbance and have an overbearing effect to the detriment
of the surrounding residents ..."
In respect of
other adjoining properties, planning history as follows:
No. 46 -
permission granted 1984 for conversion to eleven self-contained flats. Permission granted in 1987 for three storey
extension to form six flats. Permission
granted January 1989 for a four storey extension of eight flats.
In respect of no.
48, permission granted for block of seven flats in October 1995.
No. 42 - outline planning consent granted December
1988 for three/four storey extension to form seven self-contained flats with
reserved matter approval granted February 1989.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Detailed consent
sought for a new four storey block of eight flats (seven two bedroom, one one
bedroom) immediately abutting and on the southern side of the property no. 44
West Hill Road and leaving a 5.475 metres gap between the proposed block and
the north facing elevation of no. 46 West Hill Road. Proposed building will have a width of approximately 8.3 metres
by maximum depth of approximately 14.7 metres.
All lounge and bedroom windows to the flats either face west or east
with the south facing elevation containing only bathroom and landing
windows. Building will stand slightly
lower than both neighbouring properties.
In design terms proposal indicates a three storey bay window feature
matching similar features on the existing building. All windows are of sash window proportion and main entrance door
is on the west facing elevation.
Building to be
constructed in the main in buff facing brick with green coloured render to the
bay windows and sills under artificial slated hipped roof.
A total of eight
parking spaces with turning area have been indicated to the east of the
proposed block and partly to the rear of no. 44 West Hill Road. Parking is in the form of the extension of
the existing circulation and access area which serves no. 44. Finally, proposal involves the formation of
a new opening within the existing front boundary wall to provide new steps and
flank wall achieving pedestrian access to the proposed block.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
National Policies
as follows:
PPG1 - General Policy and Principles emphasises the following:
Appearance of proposed development and relationship to surroundings is a
material consideration.
Emphasis that treatment of spaces between and around buildings are of
equal importance to the design of the buildings themselves.
PPG3 - Housing emphasises the following:
Expects good quality design and encourages efficient use of land without
compromising the quality of the environment.
New housing should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to
the immediate buildings and of the wider locality.
Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with
30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density,
with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with
good public transport accessibility etc.
Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to
take pressures off development of greenfield sites.
PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment emphasises the following:
Stresses it is the quality and interest of areas rather than the
individual buildings which should be the prime consideration in identifying
Conservation Areas.
Local Plan
Policies
Site within the development
envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan and lies within
the envelope boundary of the Ryde and St. Johns Conservation Area.
Relevant policies
are as follows:
Relevant strategic
policy S6 applies.
Other relevant
policies are as follows:
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.
D1 - Standards of Design.
D2 - Standards of Development Within the Site.
B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.
H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined
Settlements.
H6 - High Density Residential Development.
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.
TR6 - Cycling and Walking.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer's
comments are awaited, however, in respect of recent similar proposal Highway
Engineer recommended a standard condition relating to turning space.
Council's
Environmental Health Officer suggests appropriate measures should be
incorporated to ensure there was sound insulation between the new dwelling
units to satisfy the requirements of Building Regulations.
Council's
Architectural Liaison Officer comments as follows:
"The proposed development is in keeping with the surrounding
buildings and because of their very open design there is no constructive
comments I can make for an individual property such as this.
The only consideration is that the proposed development has a door entry
system to stop unwanted access."
Conservation
Officer's comments as follows. He
considers scale and mass to be in principle acceptable but stressed the
importance of detailing which could be covered by condition requiring
submission of detailed drawings which identify matching details in respect of
the existing property.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Thirteen letters
of objection have been received, seven being from residents of the flats within
44 West Hill Road, two from residents of flats within 46 West Hill Road, two
from residents of Melville Street and one each from properties opposite the
site in West Hill Road. Also, letter of
objection from Oak Mount Residents Association. Points raised are summarised as follows:
Most letters
reiterate points raised in respect of the previous two applications, one being
refused and dismissed on appeal and the second being refused under delegated
powers procedure, and generally consider the same decision should be made in
respect of this application.
One objector concerned at loss of access to the rear garden.
Insufficient parking with proposal likely to increase pressures on
on-street parking.
Overdevelopment of the site.
Loss of visual space within the Conservation Area.
Overall size of proposed block would be detrimental to the character of
the street scene.
Proposal would result in the loss of a communal garden area.
Proposal would introduce additional noise pollution from both future
residents and the use of their cars.
Will impact on wildlife habitat with reference to squirrels and bird
species.
Block is of a poor design failing to respect the historical character of
the area.
General mass, with particular reference to floor levels etc. do not
coincide with adjoining property 44 (Oakmount).
Overall scale and mass of proposal not significantly different to that
which was previously refused.
Concern that space between no. 46 and 44 insufficient and is likely to
result in fire risk.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer
has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received,
however, it is not anticipated that there will be any implications regarding
crime and disorder.
EVALUATION
As there has been
no change in circumstances in terms of material considerations since the recent
appeal dismissal in November 2002 the main issues are whether or not this
application has addressed those matters raised by the Inspector and which led
him to make that decision. I therefore
intend to compare this proposal with the issues raised in the Inspector's
report and against those reasons for refusal both in that original refusal of
February 2002 and the more recent refusal of March 2003.
Impact on St.
Johns Conservation Area
The main issue in
this respect is whether or not the improved gap of 5.4 metres is sufficient to
"preserve views of the wooded area to the east as seen from the street and
from more distant locations whilst retaining appropriate gaps between the two
buildings as extended more in character with their Victorian villa-style
origins."
The above
represents the main requirement of the Inspector and the failure of the
original scheme with a gap of three metres was one of two reasons why the
appeal was dismissed. Whilst the
Inspector did not stipulate what would represent an appropriate gap he did
significantly state that "There is a need to maintain a gap greater than
three metres proposed in this instance between the south elevation of the new
building and the north elevation of no. 46 next door". It is also significant that the Inspector
had "no objection in principle to the erection of a four storey
block". From this it was clear to
the Inspector that some infilling of the gap was acceptable within which
sympathetic development could take place without impinging on the principle of
preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of Conservation
Areas. Indeed he described the site as
a gap site within an otherwise largely built-up frontage.
The increase from
3 metres to 5.4 metres is fairly significant in terms of providing an
appropriate gap and probably represents the maximum that can be achieved whilst
still creating a viable development.
The accommodation being provided within the flats is relatively basic
and therefore would present difficulties in reasonably requesting a further
reduction in width thus increasing the gap.
When comparing
current proposal with that proposal which was refused in March 2003 the gap
increase is relatively small (increase of 0.4 metre from 5 metres to 5.4
metres). As already explained however,
I consider this increase is the limit than can be achieved, and given the
Inspector's caveats I suggest that this modest increase from that latter
refusal is sufficient to overcome all the concerns identified by the Inspector
and which led him to dismiss that previous appeal.
Other comparison
factors are of some significance. The
adjoining property no. 46 has a three storey flatted extension on its southern
side which was approved in October 1995 with the gap between that extension and
the adjoining property further to the south no. 50 West Hill Road being similar
to that now being proposed in respect of the current application. Conservation Area considerations would have
been material to that proposal and therefore given these similar circumstances
I would suggest that this represents a further reason to accept that the
increase in gap is now sufficient and that the previous reason for refusal in
respect of loss of a visually significant space has now been addressed.
Impact on Living
Conditions of Nearby Residents
The Inspector
identified the issue of outlook from those windows in the northern elevation of
the adjoining flatted conversion within 46 West Hill Road as being a material
consideration and considered that the three metres gap resulted in a
substantial building which would have an affect on that outlook. That existing side elevation has a total of
seven windows, three of which are secondary windows to main habitable rooms
with the main windows facing east or west in the form of large circular bay
windows. The remaining three windows at
ground, first and second floor level serve bedrooms.
The assessment
therefore has to be whether increasing the gap from 3 metres to 5.4 metres
addresses this effect on outlook. In
this regard the Inspector "concluded that the outlook from those windows
would be severely affected by the prospect of a substantial building located
within three metres." Whilst it is
impossible to judge for certain whether or not the Inspector would have come to
the same conclusion had the gap been 5.4 metres. The fact that he had no objection in principle to a four storey
block within the gap would suggest his acceptance in principle that a building
of some mass and scale could be inserted in that gap without adversely
impacting on outlook.
A second
consideration in respect of this issue is that similar circumstances already
exist in terms of north facing elevation windows facing substantial extensions
to adjoining properties and having similar gaps to that which is now being
proposed.
I would also
suggest that the prevailing colour of brick in this area is buff which is
relatively light in appearance and therefore would reflect light more readily
than had a darker red brick been required.
Again, it is
appreciated that the more recent refusal of March 2003 also cited this issue as
being a reason for refusal with the current proposal representing a relatively
small increase from 5 metres to 5.4 metres.
Again, I return to the block subject of the current proposal being the
minimum that can be achieved whilst still being viable and providing a
reasonable standard of accommodation I am of the view that the relatively small
increase is sufficient to address that reason.
Essentially there has to be a judgement made as to what represents an
appropriate gap which overcomes both this issue and the previous Conservation
Area issue.
It is important to
appreciate that by refusing the later application in March 2003 despite that
application indicating a substantial increase in the gap to five metres has
resulted in the applicant going the extra mile by giving further consideration
to revisiting the scheme to establish what further reduction could be
achieved. The result therefore, in my
judgement is that the maximum gap possible has now been achieved whilst still
resulting in a viable scheme which fully accords with the Housing Needs Survey,
requirements of PPG3 and other policies.
The only other
issue of concern to the Inspector was the potential adverse effect in terms of
outlook from proposed kitchen windows having a south facing aspect. Internal room arrangements within the
current proposal has omitted any kitchen windows or indeed any other habitable
room windows south facing and therefore this is not an issue in respect of
outlook. Indeed, the only windows which
do south face are bathroom and landing windows.
Conclusion
Whilst I
appreciate the continued concern being expressed by local residents I am of the
view that the issue of what constitutes a suitable gap has been addressed, and
more significantly the concerns identified by the Inspector have been overcome
to the extent that approval recommendation is appropriate.
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 of 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 the relationship between the proposed block of
flats and the increased width of gap represents a suitable development within this
gap site within the Conservation Area.
I therefore consider that the proposal complies with all relevant
policies and will satisfactorily preserve and enhance the Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
doors and window frames of the building shall be constructed of timber and
shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing
building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply
with Policy B8 (Alterations and Extensions of Non-Listed Buildings in
Conservation Areas) 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 showing
the construction of any cornices, mouldings and other decorative features of
the proposed building. Reason:
In the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area in compliance with policies B6 (Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas) and B8 (Alterations and Extensions of Non-Listed
Buildings in Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
The
development shall not be brought into use until the turning space is provided
within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward
gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This space shall
thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Details
of the design and construction of the access road and car parking area which
shall include details of finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority and thereafter constructed in accordance with the
agreed scheme before any of the residential units hereby approved being
occupied. Reason:
To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access to the proposed
units in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) and Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Before
the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details
of other hard surfacing 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 their
maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. No residential unit shall be occupied
until such planting has taken place. Reason:
To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
8 |
The
building hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has
been made within the site for the secure parking of a minimum of eight
bicycles. Such provision shall be
made in the form of "Sheffield" hoops unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter. Reason:
To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply
with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8. |
TCPL/21515/C P/01540/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration
Date: 27/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Heritage Properties 2/5 storey
building to provide 20 flats with associated facilities; parking provided at
below ground level; landscaping land forming
part of Egypt House, Egypt Hill, Cowes, PO31 |
See joint report
under LBC/21515/D
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
proposal by reason of its overall scale, mass and height represents an
intrusive and overdominant development, particularly when viewed from the
north (Egypt Esplanade) and would therefore be out of character with the
prevailing pattern of spacious seafront development in the locality contrary
to Policy G4 a, f, i and k (General Locational Criteria for Development) and
Policy D1 a, b, c, f and g (Standards
of Design) and Policy D2 b and c (Standards for Development Within the Site)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
proximity of the proposed building along with its overall scale, mass, height
and extent of footprint would detrimentally affect the setting of Egypt House
which is a Grade II Listed Building, compromising its character and quality
and would therefore be contrary to Strategic Policy S10 and Policy B2
(Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
|
|
3 |
The
proposal fails to provide adequate information as to how local affordable
housing will be provided as a result of this development, thus depriving the
whole community access to housing and is therefore contrary to Policy H14
(Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan and the Government's objective of facilitating
housing for the whole community within PPG3 - Housing. |
|
4 |
The
information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in
detail in respect of the method of surface water and foul drainage discharge
from the proposed development so that the Local Planning Authority is unable
to consider fully the effects of the proposal on existing drainage systems in
the area, and in the absence of further details it is considered that the
proposal is contrary to Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
proposal affords insufficient provision to safeguard wildlife under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As Amended) (Schedule 1) so far as it
relates to red squirrels and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy S10
and Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9. |
LBC/21515/D P/01541/03 Parish/Name: Cowes
Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 27/10/2003 -
Listed Building Consent Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Heritage Properties LBC for 2/5
storey building to provide 20 flats with associated facilities; parking
provided at below ground level; landscaping land forming
part of Egypt House, Egypt Hill, Cowes, PO31 |
REASONS FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application is a
major proposal on a prominently located site within curtilage of a Grade II
Listed Building which has raised a number of important planning considerations
along with a significant level of representations, all requiring Committee
determination.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a major
application and will have taken twelve and a half weeks to determine.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The property Egypt
House and its curtilage is located on the south western corner of the junction
of Egypt Esplanade/Queens Road with Egypt Hill. The area of the curtilage which is the subject of the application
is in the south eastern area being to the south east of Egypt House and
consisting of the former walled garden area which served that property. Site has an area of 0.35 hectares being
almost rectangular and has a gentle slope from east to west with a steeper
slope from south to north (back to front).
There is a 65 metres frontage length onto Egypt Hill and a 50 metres
frontage onto the access road off Egypt Hill which both serves a recent
development of eight detached houses and known as Egypt Copse. That access road also serves longstanding
properties West and East Dormers, Hardwicke and Land Fall.
Site itself is the
former kitchen garden for Egypt House with there originally being a brick wall
running east west across the front of the site that forms the northern boundary
of the application site where it abuts the more formal lawned garden area which
fronts Egypt Esplanade. At the east end
the wall still stands and the old bay/foundation forms a 0.50 metre step across
the site between the two gardens. Site
is treed particularly along its southern and abutting the western
boundary. There are also individual
trees and groups of trees within the garden area. The Egypt Hill/Egypt Esplanade boundary to Egypt House is in the
form of a prominent stone wall. There
is also recent new tree planting within the site abutting the southern
boundary.
Egypt House
itself, which is situated within the western area of the overall curtilage
being visually prominent both from Egypt Esplanade and the junction of Egypt
Hill with Egypt Esplanade. It is a
substantial building finished in red brick under tiled roof containing a number
of features including buttresses with diagonal brick cornices and more
significantly crenellated parapet walls.
Other features include two storey brick bay topped with triangular gable
that extends up above the parapet. East
elevation is simpler in form. Building
also contains a tower which has arched doors and windows and forms a link
between the two elevations.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None in respect of
development within the grounds of Egypt House, however, in May 1996 both Listed
Building and planning consent was granted for the conversion of part of Egypt
House to form an additional self-contained living unit.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Application seeks
detailed consent for a stepped block having a footprint of approximately 46
metres in width (south/north elevation) and 35 metres in depth (west/east
elevation). The building will stand at
a minimum distance of 14 metres to maximum distance of 17.6 metres off the
southern boundary and will be approximately parallel with and 4 metres off the
eastern boundary (fronting Egypt Hill).
The south western corner of the proposed building is virtually level
with the south eastern corner of a wing of Egypt House in its south eastern
corner.
The first element
relates to the ground floor which is partially dug in to the rear (southern
area of the site) and provides a total of twenty parking spaces. Access to those parking places is via a new
service road off the existing access roadway which immediately abuts the
southern boundary as previously described.
The new service road of approximately 5 metres in width is set over a
strip of land which forms a wider 6 metres easement to cater for a sewer
diversion. Proposal also provides for
six external visitor parking spaces off that service road.
Also included in
the basement car parking area are three number staircases, plant foyer and
cleaner storage along with other storage rooms. Within the northern half of the ground floor area is a proposal for
a total of six flats, all of which have direct access onto the area between the
northern garden wall boundary which applicants indicate will be rebuilt in the
style of the original walled garden.
Within this space between the block and the wall the proposal provides
for a formal water feature with bridge over.
In the north western corner which is the lowest part of the site, the
height of this ground floor element enables further accommodation to be
provided in a mezzanine form which provides additional accommodation to flats 5
and 6. Finally, again within the
western area of the basement car parking, is a gym facility including sauna and
changing facilities.
The second and
main element of the proposal is set off a terrace which forms the roof to the
six flats within the ground floor as previously described. The proposal provides for three floors of
accommodation essentially set over the ground floor car parking area providing
a total of fourteen flats with one of those flats being through three floors.
In detail proposal
indicates five flats at the roof terrace floor level, four of which have direct
access onto that terrace. Two further
floors of flatted accommodation above providing total of 9 flats with similar
levels of accommodation.
The third element
relates to the tower feature within the eastern end of the block which provides
further additional accommodation essentially at roof level for the three storey
flat. Also the roof has been designed
to provide a large roof terrace area which is accessible by the residents of
the upper floor flats.
In terms of
materials the main building will be constructed in brick with detailing based
on Egypt House. The north and east
facing elevations have crenellated parapets that will relate to the original
house. South and west elevations have
pitched roofs with dormers with the remaining part of the roof being flat and
used as a private terrace as previously described.
In landscaping
terms proposal seeks to restore the original formal garden within the new brick
wall. Essentially proposal divided into
three areas, front/north garden with water feature, formal landscaped terraced
flat roof of apartments, and existing screen planting to rear. Application has been accompanied by a tree
survey prepared by an arboriculturist which details the size, species and
location of those trees and comments in a number of cases on the general
condition of the trees.
Applicants have
indicated affordable housing will not be provided on-site but have suggested
that they will seek to "negotiate with the Isle of Wight Council and local
housing association to resolve this provision by payment towards such a
requirement of provision of such housing where the need is required".
Application has
also been accompanied by a stability report prepared by a geotechnical engineer
which is necessary given the site's location within an area of known slope and
ground stability problems. It concludes
that provided there is little or any excavation and that the building
construction uses concrete floors, brick/block construction so as to increase
net weight then there should be no reduction in stability during construction
and a small increase in stability thereafter.
Recommendations are made with regard to foundations and super structures
so that the building will remain unaffected by any ground strains that may
occur.
The application to
date does not include any drainage information although applicants indicate
that this will be provided.
Application has
also been accompanied by a design statement, the main elements of which are
quoted as follows:
"The design is based on the idea of reproducing the key elements of
Egypt House.
a) It is a feature building.
b) It is set in a garden
landscape.
c) It has distinctive forms,
materials and detailing for the walls and windows and doors.
d) The tower and parapet forms
the roofline.
The stature of Egypt House is greatly increased by its setting in the
garden. The landscaping is an essential
part of the house. A classic image of
this effect is Osborne House where the building is not just set in the garden
but also up on a terrace overlooking it.
The proposed design takes reference from the view. The "main" house is set to the
rear of the site with a terrace in front.
This creates terracing to the slope of the site for
landscaping......"
The design
statement indicates photographs of similar terrace landscape examples from the
past with emphasis on balustrade terraces etc.
Summary of this
statement is as follows:
"The proposed building should be seen in the context of the
landscaping which is an integral part of the scheme. Just as Egypt House is set in its garden so the new building sits
in its terraced garden. The
"main" house reflects the materials and form of Egypt House and the
"orangery" articulates the terracing and of the slope of the
site."
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
National policies
covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:
Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and
size, type and location of housing.
Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to
take pressure off development of greenfield sites.
Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with
30 - 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.
Emphasis on need for good quality design and encourage sufficient use of
land without compromising the quality of the environment.
Advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation
but should have regard to the immediate buildings and the wider locality.
More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect
Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.
PPG14 -
Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning, Annex 1 1996 raises the
following issues:
In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of
landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where
appropriate.
Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to
landsliding including the criteria and information requirements which should be
used in determining planning applications.
Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a slope
stability report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so
and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the
site.
It states that it is not the Council's responsibility to ensure safe
development with that responsibility resting with the applicant/developer. The Council must carry out best endeavours
to ensure the site is capable of supporting the development.
PPG15 - Planning
and the Historic Environment covers the following issues:
New buildings should be carefully designed to respect their setting,
follow fundamental architectural principles of scale, height, massing and
alignment and use appropriate materials.
The relevant Act requires Planning Authorities to give special regard to
the desirability of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings, pointing out
that the setting is an essential part of the building's character, especially
if gardens or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function.
Developers should assess likely impact of their proposals on the special
interests of the site or structure and provide appropriate information
indicating an understanding of that impact.
Planning Authorities required under the relevant Act to consider
development which affects a Listed Building or its setting, with particular
regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.
The document states that "While the listing of a building should
not be seen as a bar to all future change, the starting point of the exercise
of Listed Building control is the statutory requirement on Local Planning
Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a building
or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest
which it possesses".
With regard to
issues of setting of a Listed Building the document advises that general
relevant considerations of all Listed Building consent applications in terms of
setting is as follows:
The building setting and its contribution to the local scene which may
be a very important example where it forms an element in a group, park, garden
or other townscape or landscape or where it shares particular architectural
forms or details with other buildings nearby.
Local Plan
Policies
Site is not
allocated but is within the development envelope boundary for Cowes as
indicated on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Relevant strategic
policies are as follows: S1, S2, S6 and
S10.
Other relevant
policies are as follows:
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.
D1 - Standards of Design.
D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.
D3 - Landscaping.
H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined
Settlements.
H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of a Housing Scheme.
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.
TR6 - Cycling and Walking.
U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.
G7 - Unstable Land.
C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.
The most
significant policy is B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings which is as follows:
"Proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or
the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted".
Text from this
policy is also quoted as follows:
"...the relationship between the building and its surrounding can
often be as important as the detailing of the structure itself, particularly
when related to nearby open spaces, vistas, prominent sites and buildings. It is important therefore to consider the
wider impact development on adjoining land and buildings. The curtilage is defined as that land around
the building or structure which historically relates to it."
Members will be
aware of publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study
commissioned by the Council. The study
area extends from Market Hill in Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as
far as Baring Road and Solent View Road.
The main objective of the study was to review the stability of the
coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of the current application the site
is within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability
report prepared by a competent person which the document advises should be a
geotechnical engineer.
Site is located
within Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a
maximum of 0-75% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. The site's location within Zone 3 puts it
outside the need for any Transport Infrastructure Payment.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommends conditions should application be approved with those conditions
relating to parking, turning space and the provision of cycle parking.
Council's
Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment apart from advising that
sound insulation measures need to be incorporated in liaison with the Building
Control Section.
Application has
been considered by the Architects Panel whose comments are summarised as
follows:
Concern at the overpowering size, scale and height of the proposed
building and its close proximity to Egypt House which they recognise as an
important Listed Building. They
recognised that the existing Listed Building is sited within large grounds with
well landscaped back drop of trees.
Panel considered that a well handled development could enhance the area
and the distinctive design of the existing building may allow this to stand out
and retain its identify.
Panel considered that a model and a detailed three dimensional image of
the proposed development would have been useful in assessing the merits of the
proposal.
Concern was expressed regarding apparent discrepancies between the
scaled drawings and the illustrative perspective which appear to show a
building of smaller scale.
In general Panel considered that the proposed development was too high
and would have an overdominant effect.
In particular they noted that the level of the terrace was approximately
in line with the roof of Egypt House itself.
They suggested that the terrace would have been more appropriate were it
reduced in height by at least one storey.
Concern that the new building would be very close to the rear corner of
Egypt House and therefore the relationship between the proposed and existing
building would be uncomfortable. They
also noted that the building would be close to the frontage onto Egypt Hill and
would also be dominant in this location.
Panel were concerned that the proposed building appeared to be a
pastiche of the detailing of Egypt House but lacked the scale, rhythm and
elegance of the original. They
considered that a building of different design or possibly even a modern design
may be acceptable and would allow the distinctive design of Egypt House to
stand alone.
They noted that the front and rear elevations of the proposed building
appeared to have a different architectural character to the other elevations.
Members are also
advised that although not a requirement, consultation is taking place with
English Heritage in terms of the effect of the proposal on the adjacent Listed
Building.
For information
English Heritage only require to be consulted where a development may affect a
Grade II* or Grade I building. In this
case English Heritage had received third party representations and therefore
requested details of the proposal in order to reply to those
representations. It is hoped that
English Heritage comments will be available before the meeting.
Environment Agency
raises no objection but recommends conditions covering provision of a surface
water drainage scheme, maintenance of a tidal flap, insertion of trapped
gulleys and a clear identification of foul and surface water drainage systems.
Council's Tree
Officer comments are summarised as follows:
Based on footprint, no significant specimens would be lost if this
development were to proceed.
The survey provided is not really much use without a scaled plan for
trees detailing where the trees in the schedule are on the site.
There is a general "de-greening" of the area given the volume
of development that does not really affect the above response.
Tree Officer
observes that there are far more significant higher amenity value trees on
sites overlooking Egypt House.
Council's Ecology
Officer comments are summarised as follows:
South western corner of the site where some of the larger trees are
located regularly used by red squirrels with the aerial route way being from
the adjoining Egypt Copse.
Confirmation that there are adequate aerial route ways to facilitate
squirrel movement in this part of the site.
Information provided in respect of the existence of a red squirrel drey
in a large ash tree adjoining approach road to the house. Ecology Officer considers this should be
checked.
Ecology Officer points out that red squirrels are protected under
Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which prohibits disturbance in a
place of shelter or protection. As such
this constitutes a material consideration in the planning process.
Unclear what impact proposed access road will have on the trees
adjoining the approach road. Any tree
removal and tree surgery in this area has the potential to impact upon red
squirrels.
Ecology Officer considers further information is required in order to be
able to assess the impact of the development upon red squirrels.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cowes Town Council
object on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, because of the mass of
the development its relationship to the adjacent Listed Building and its close
proximity to the Listed Building and because it has total lack of amenity area
and inadequate vehicular access.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Application has
attracted approximately 75 individual letters of objection, 50 copies of a
pro-forma letter and 6 e-mails. In some
cases more than one letter has been received from individual households. In the main representations have been
received from residents of Egypt Copse, Egypt Hill, Queens Road along with
other local Cowes residents, and indeed Isle of Wight residents. Letters have also been received from
mainland addresses. Included in the
batch of letters is an objection from the National Trust, Solent Protection
Society and the local Councillor.
The main thrust of
objection in every case relates to the scale, mass and height of the proposed
building and its resultant impact on Egypt House and its setting. I quote from the letter written on behalf of
the National Trust who are owners of properties within Queens Road close to
Egypt Hill and their comment is as follows:
"The massive scale of the proposed development will not only dwarf
Egypt House which is a Listed Building it would have a highly domineering
effect on the locality around Egypt Point.
This will also be the case when viewed from the sea and will change the
very nature of the seafront in this part of the Island.
Building on the scale of the one in the application is inappropriate and
it is for this reason that the application should be firmly rejected".
Letters include a
number of other points which are summarised as follows:
Insufficient parking provision to serve twenty large luxury flats with
result that overspill parking will take place within the immediate vicinity
causing dangers to both motorists and pedestrians. Particular reference made to limited footpath provision in Egypt
Hill.
Concern that the additional traffic turning right into the access road
halfway up Egypt Hill will create hazards with reference to the position of the
access in relation to a bend in Egypt Hill.
Increased use of Egypt Hill will adversely impact on the surface of that
road.
Some objectors consider a site visit by the Committee would be
appropriate prior to determination.
Proposed development is only aimed at a high income group likely to be
out of reach of local residents.
Considerable concern expressed regarding ground and slope stability with
particular reference to the size of the proposed building. Particular concern expressed regarding
danger to slope stability during construction work.
Concern that the height will have an adverse impact on the outlook of
properties to the south in Egypt Copse.
Particular reference made to the design statement as being incorrect in
this respect.
Recognition that the design attempts to mimic that of Egypt House but
inevitably compromises will be made by introducing inappropriate materials.
Some objectors note that the proposal does not provide for on-site
affordable housing provision.
Many objectors make reference to the fact that this scheme is contrary
to a number of specific policies within the UDP.
Finally, majority
of objectors have seriously questioned the accuracy of the artist's impression
indicated in the design statement. It
is suggested that this artist's impression shows a lower scaled building and differs
significantly from the scaled street scene plan which accompanies the
application. Some objectors have indeed
superimposed what they consider to be the correct scale height and mass onto
the artist's impression to illustrate their concerns.
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer
has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received, however, it is not anticipated that there will be any implications
regarding crime and disorder.
EVALUATION
The level and
content of the representations is a clear indicator as to the controversial
nature of the proposal with the concerns covering a range of issues. Whilst there are a number of considerations,
the main one is as follows:
Impact of Scale,
Height and Mass on the Listed Building
This is the most
significant issue which the Planning Authority is required to consider
carefully. The advisory document PPG15
puts almost as much emphasis on the importance of the setting of a Listed
Building as it does on the quality of the Listed Building itself. The Grade II Listed Building Egypt House is
a stand-alone building, there being no other Listed Buildings in close vicinity
and is not within the Conservation Area.
If anything this makes the building more important in terms of its setting,
particularly given its prominence of this corner site at this relatively
important junction of Egypt Hill with Queens Road and Egypt Esplanade. The setting of any building is the quality
of the space about and how it sits with the topography, landscape and general
character of the area.
Not surprisingly
applicants have claimed that their proposal compliments the setting of Egypt
House and the more formal garden with their proposal being set within the
kitchen garden. Whilst accepting the
proposed building is tiered to keep the main mass a reasonable distance from
Egypt House, the information on the submitted scaled drawings clearly indicate
a substantial building of significant height and mass. It covers almost the whole width of the
former walled gardens and stands significantly higher than Egypt House with
there being very little "dig-in" to help reduce that height. Indeed the applicants own geotechnical
engineer is advising that removal of any significant amounts of soil would be
unwise in this case. The extent of the
height of the block is illustrated by the fact that the terrace which forms the
roof to the ground floor flats is level with the roof of Egypt House and that
terrace has a further three storeys above it with a four storey tower element. Given this relationship I have no option but
to concur with the Architects Panel comments which, to a great extent support
those of local residents, that this proposal is simply too massive, too high
and out of scale and would therefore be overdominant in respect of Grade II
Listed Building Egypt House and its setting.
Contrary to the
comments contained within a supporting letter from the agent, this proposal
does not have the blessing of Planning Officers. Indeed there is evidence on a back file which is in the public
domain of a letter forwarded to an agent following negotiations which, whilst
recognising the possibility of potential development within the walled garden
area of Egypt House, made strong reference to the setting of the Listed Building
being of prime importance and suggested that any development should be modest
in nature in order to ensure compatibility with that setting.
In any event any
pre-application negotiations are always carried out without prejudice with the
interpretation of the outcome of discussions and suggestions sometimes
differing. Ultimately it is the
applicant's responsibility to justify his scheme as advised in PPG15, through
the design statement. Neither in terms
of the written statement or indeed the submission of the artist's impressions
have provided a convincing argument that this proposal is acceptable. Whilst the applicants may consider the
artist's impressions, particularly that which indicates the view of the development
from Egypt Esplanade and the sea, does represent a reasonably accurate
reflection of the proposal there are clearly differences when comparing that
artist's impression with the scaled street scene which indicates a much taller
and therefore much more prominent building.
I have therefore paid little regard to the artist's impression in
assessing the merits of this proposal and in this regard it is significant that
the Architects Panel expressed similar concerns.
Other indicators
of the excessive nature of this proposal is its closeness to Egypt Hill and the
general coverage of the footprint with particular reference to the closeness of
the proposed building to the rear corner of Egypt House, resulting in a
relationship between the two buildings which the Architects Panel considered
would be uncomfortable, a view which I would concur with.
All the above
leads me to the view that the proposal is simply excessive in scale due to
unacceptable mass, height, width, along with an excess of footprint, all of
which will have an overpowering and overdominant effect adversely affecting the
setting of this important prominent Listed Building Egypt House.
Architectural
Appearance
The design
approach in this case has been to essentially copy the neighbouring Egypt House
with there being many features of Egypt House appearing within the detail of
the proposed building. Again, advice in
PPG15 is that new and old should not be set apart but are "woven into the
fabric of the living and working community". It is obvious that the architecture of Egypt House has played an
important influential role in the architectural design of the proposed building
although the Architects Panel are clearly not convinced, referring to the
design being "a pastiche of the detailing of Egypt House but lacked the
scale, rhythm and elegance of the original." Indeed, the Panel suggested that a building of different design
and possibly even a modern design may be more acceptable allowing Egypt House
to stand-alone. Obviously this is very
subjective, however, reference is also made in PPG15 to new buildings not
having to copy their older neighbours in detail with the main aim being to
achieve harmony between new development and older established neighbours, which
in this case would need to address the setting of the Listed Building, an issue
which has been covered above.
Whilst noting the
comments of the Architects Panel they do not appear to be sufficiently critical
to warrant a refusal of the application on the grounds of architectural design.
Provision of
Affordable Housing
Applicants have
acknowledged that a proposal of this density would trigger the need for
providing affordable housing which, in this case, would be a total of four
units. Members will be aware of the
preferred option of provision of affordable housing is always on-site although
whether such provision would be appropriate in this case is a matter for
further consideration. This apart,
however, whilst a short statement has been made which suggests the applicants
have acknowledged the need to provide affordable housing, they have not set out
how the relevant policy is to be complied with by submitting as part of the
application any detailed alternative, i.e. is the housing to be provided on an
alternative site or what level of financial contribution will be made to offset
the non-provision on site. I therefore
consider that this is a further reason to refuse the application.
Ground Stability
The application
has been accompanied by a detailed Stability Report prepared by a geotechnical
engineer, highly experienced in ground and slope stability conditions on the
Isle of Wight, particularly Cowes.
However, in view of the basic problems with regard to mass, scale and
height of this proposal I have not forwarded this report on to a consulting
engineer to be vetted nor have I consulted the Council's Coastal Manager. I have no reason to believe that the
contents of the report are not representative of the ground conditions. This does represent a difficult situation
for there is a cost factor in getting such reports vetted by appropriate
competent engineers which may be deemed to be poor use of Council's resources
if Members are mindful to refuse this application.
If Members are
mindful to approve the application then I suggest that no approval should be
issued until this report is vetted and there are no adverse comments made by
the vetting engineer which would warrant reconsideration of the
application. If Members are mindful to
refuse the application I suggest a letter be sent with the refusal notice
pointing out that the engineer's report has not been vetted and therefore that
report should not be deemed to be acceptable, although I would suggest that it
would be inappropriate to refuse the application for reasons of inadequate
information etc.
Access and Parking
Whilst noting the
concerns of the local residents with regard to these two issues, Highway
Engineers would not support these concerns and I would concur with this
approach. Parking provision accords
with the Council's parking policies and the Highway Engineer considers that the
access arrangements are acceptable.
Therefore, without his support I suggest it would be difficult to
justify refusing the application on this issue.
Drainage
Applicant has made
reference to instructing a relevant engineer to carry out the appropriate
survey and study in respect of surface water and foul drainage and he has
concluded that measures can be taken to satisfy discharge of drainage. However, I still await at the time of
preparing this report details of these measures and until these are received
and clarified with Southern Water I will have no option but to give as a
further reason for refusal failure to provide adequate information on this
issue.
Effect on Trees
Applicants have
given careful consideration to the retention and protection of trees,
particularly along the southern boundary which provide the landscape buffer to
properties further to the south. There
is no doubt that this proposal however will result in loss of trees which are
more essentially located within the walled garden area. Indeed, any development, even in a modest
form, is likely to result in some loss of trees. Council's Tree Officer acknowledges that no significant specimens
will be lost as a result of this proposal but also significantly he refers to
the "de-greening" of the area and how extensive that would be as a
result of this proposal and its substantial ground cover.
A very formal
architectural approach to this development would not fit with the principle of
seeking the retention of some of the existing landscape within the central area
of the walled garden. A more informal
approach to development in this area with smaller blocks strategically and
randomly positioned would obviously be a better approach if existing landscape
features were to be retained. Whilst
accepting that Policy D3 does make reference to schemes reflecting the existing
features and character of the area in landscape terms, the fact that the
submitted scheme may be deemed to represent an excessive
"de-greening" of the area, I do not believe the quality of the
landscape within the walled garden area is sufficient to warrant refusing the
application on this basis. The Tree
Officer has not identified any tree species in this area which are worthy of
special mention and without such support it would be difficult to sustain that
as a reason.
Ecology
The Ecology
Officer's comments are self-explanatory and I would concur with his view that
the effect on protected species is a material consideration. Whilst I would not suggest that the
applicants could not provide evidence that mitigation measures can be put in
place to address this issue, the fact remains that no information relating to
this matter is provided and therefore I consider it represents a further reason
to refuse on the grounds of insufficient information.
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
DECISION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in
this report, there are clearly a number of issues on which this proposal fails
to comply with relevant national and local policies, with the main one being
excessive scale, mass, height, width etc. It is not surprising that this
proposal has attracted an extensive level of opposition and whilst I would not
concur with all the points of concern I consider refusal of the application is
appropriate, not only on the grounds of excessive mass and scale but also in
respect of failure to address in any detail provision of affordable housing,
insufficient information in respect of drainage and ecology.
RECOMMENDATION -
REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
proposal by reason of its overall scale, mass and height represents an
intrusive and overdominant development, particularly when viewed from the
north (Egypt Esplanade) and would therefore be out of character with the
prevailing pattern of spacious seafront development in the locality contrary
to Policy G4 a, f, i and k (General Locational Criteria for Development) and
Policy D1 a, b, c, f and g (Standards
of Design) and Policy D2 b and c (Standards for Development Within the Site)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
proximity of the proposed building along with its overall scale, mass, height
and extent of footprint would detrimentally affect the setting of Egypt House
which is a Grade II Listed Building, compromising its character and quality
and would therefore be contrary to Strategic Policy S10 and Policy B2
(Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
|
|
3 |
The
proposal fails to provide adequate information as to how local affordable
housing will be provided as a result of this development, thus depriving the
whole community access to housing and is therefore contrary to Policy H14
(Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan and the Government's objective of facilitating
housing for the whole community within PPG3 - Housing. |
|
4 |
The
information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in
detail in respect of the method of surface water and foul drainage discharge
from the proposed development so that the Local Planning Authority is unable
to consider fully the effects of the proposal on existing drainage systems in
the area, and in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal
is contrary to Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
proposal affords insufficient provision to safeguard wildlife under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As Amended) (Schedule 1) so far as it
relates to red squirrels and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy S10
and Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10. |
TCP/25447/A P/01423/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard
Ward: Gurnard Registration
Date: 24/07/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr P Jennings Alterations; single storey extension to form living
room; alterations to roof to include
conversion of & extension to roof space to provide additional living
accommodation with balcony & balustrading on rear elevation at 1st floor
level, (revised scheme) 39 Lower Church
Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318JG |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Application
relates to a proposal which has been the subject of a recent refusal and,
notwithstanding revisions to the scheme, this application continues to attract
representations raising a number of issues thereby requiring consideration by
the Committee.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken twenty six weeks to date
and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of
applications due to Case Officer workload.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The dwelling is
one of a pair of semi-detached single storey properties located on south
western side of Lower Church Road.
Adjoining to south is a Grade II thatched cottage whilst adjoining to
the north of the pair is a two storey traditional detached dwelling. Area is characterised by a mixture of older
and traditional style dwellings including one or two infill modern dwellings,
most recent of which is a two and a half storey dwelling constructed on the
Marsh Road frontage to the north west.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In July 2003 an
application for a single storey extension to form living room which included
alterations to the roof to include conversion of and extension to roof space to
provide additional living accommodation with balcony and ballustrading on the
rear elevation at first floor level refused for reasons of:
·
Height and mass along with relationship to
adjoining neighbouring property represents intrusive addition, out of scale and
character with semi-detached pair of dwellings therefore having an adverse
effect on visual amenity of the locality.
·
Inclusion of external balcony in manner shown
detrimental to amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential property.
·
Proposed increase in height of roof would represent
an intrusive addition out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of
development when viewed from Lower Church Road.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
A detailed consent
sought for two storey extension to rear of property consisting of additional
living room on ground floor extending vertically to provide additional bedroom
and sun deck at first floor accessed via an internal staircase. External walls to be extended on both sides
partially enclosing the first floor sun deck.
Sun deck would be provided with ballustrading on
its south western
facing elevation. Extension to be
finished with a gabled roof extending through to front edge of the sun deck and
constructed in mixture of brick and render with shiplap boarding on upper
floors, all under a shingled roof to match existing.
Height of
extension measures 5.5 metres from ground to top of ridge which compares with
the existing single storey height of 4.6 metres to ridge. Extension will therefore stand at 0.9 metre
higher than the existing ridge.
Application
supported by a statement from the applicant which is summarised as follows:
A negotiating letter to applicant in respect of previous refused
application suggested that lower roof line and enclosed balcony would be more
acceptable and would maintain character of the cottage when viewed from the
front.
Applicant states that he left the balcony exposed following discussions
with neighbouring property owner and also because overlooking already occurs
from existing balconies in the immediate vicinity. Applicant points out that screening has now been provided to
those balconies since that application was submitted.
Current application submitted on the basis of the advice given showing
enclosed balcony and lower roof line.
Emphasis placed on there being no objection from the Environment Agency.
Applicant points out that the area generally is undergoing change
evident by the erection of larger more modern looking properties in the area.
Applicant claims extension is in character with Marsh/Gurnard area and
"allows my family a still small but comfortable property".
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies
are as follows:
S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design
D1 - Standards of Design
D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site
H7 - Extensions and Alterations
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Environment Agency
has no objection in principle to the proposal.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gurnard Parish
Council object to the application on the following grounds:
"... the proposal still does not respect the visual integrity of
the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding area. That the height, mass and density is not compatible with the
surrounding building. That daylight,
sunlight and open aspects of the development would be adversely affected and
that the proposal would detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of
adjoining buildings."
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters of
objection received from the residents of Lower Church Road, one being from the
immediate neighbouring property owner.
Points raised summarised as follows:
Proposal only represents a slight difference from the original refusal,
observing that the roof shape is, if anything, bigger than that previously
refused.
Claim that description is misleading.
Proposal is excessive in scale and height and would be totally out of
keeping with existing symmetrical appearance of the pair of single storey
properties.
Neighbouring property owner suggests that a number of trees will be
affected by the proposal contrary to the information provided on the
application form.
Reference made to ground condition issues, the area being subject to
subsidence. Concern being expressed
that any extension may adversely affect structural integrity of the adjoining
property.
Concern that proposal will result in loss of light and privacy and will
have an overdominant effect. Particular
reference is made to the impact of the sun deck or balcony and the overlooking
effect that this balcony may have on the adjoining property with particular
reference to the conservatory within the adjoining garden.
Proposal would look out of place when viewed either up or down Lower
Church Road.
Proposed extension out of character affecting the appearance of the
adjoining Listed thatched cottage.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factor
in considering application is whether or not a slight reduction in height and
the enclosure of the balcony has sufficiently addressed the problems identified
in the previous refused application.
The reduction in
height is modest (0.35 m) but does represent the maximum reduction that could
be achieved whilst still retaining first floor room height.
If the view is
that the property is in principle capable of accepting a modest two storey
extension to provide additional accommodation at first floor then the issue has
to be whether or not this extension is of a sufficiently low profile to be
compatible with the small scale character of the pair of semi-detached
properties and therefore is not overdominant.
I consider the height increase relates to a relatively small area of the
overall bungalow and this, coupled with use of sensitive materials (shiplap
boarding at first floor and shingled roof) would create an extension which sits
reasonably comfortably with the existing semi-detached pair.
I also consider
that the slight reduction assists in reducing the impact when viewed from Lower
Church Road and represents a relatively modest interruption in the elongated
ridge line and, if anything, assists in breaking up that ridge line.
In terms of the
impact when viewed from the west (rear) the proposal cannot be seen from any
public highway and therefore the greater material consideration in this respect
is the impact it may have on the immediate neighbouring property.
The enclosing of
the balcony will, in my opinion, overcome the potential for loss of privacy to
the neighbouring property although some overlooking of that garden area will
occur but in a south westerly direction only, with all other directions being
screened by the extension of the side walls.
If Members are mindful to approve the application, however, I would suggest
a condition requiring some obscure screening to the ballustrading which should
further reduce the potential for overlooking.
The final issue
therefore is whether or not the creation of an enclosed balcony which has
increased the scale of the extension by introducing a gable roof finish as
opposed to a cropped gable as was refused, represents a scale of extension
which is unacceptable and could be deemed to be intrusive.
The design reasons
for increasing the scale, therefore reducing the potential for overlooking are
acknowledged. However, whilst the
increase in scale will have an impact on the neighbour, I do not consider this
would be to a degree which would warrant a refusal of the application. The extension itself is approximately 2.4
metres off the party boundary which I consider represents a sufficient gap to
overcome the concerns being expressed by the neighbouring property owner.
With regard to
concerns regarding ground conditions the issue of foundation details will be a
matter to be considered under the Building Regulations. In any event whilst ground conditions in the
area may require robust foundation designs there is no evidence to suggest that
ground conditions are not capable of supporting this extension. Advice in PPG14 would suggest that it would
be unreasonable to require at the planning stage a structural engineer's report
in respect of this relatively modest extension.
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 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
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in
this report, it is considered that the extension now proposed has addressed the
previous reasons for refusal and the resultant development in terms of its
visual impact and affect on adjoining properties is acceptable and the proposal
does not conflict with the policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
(Revised plans)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
The
materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the alterations
hereby permitted shall match those
used in the existing building. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order)
(with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those
expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed within the
extension hereby approved. Reason: In
the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Development
shall not begin until details of opaque screening to the balcony
ballustrading to protect the privacy of the neighbours have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The balcony shall not be brought into use
until the works of screening have been carried out in accordance with the
approved details and the screening shall be retained hereafter. Reason:
In the interests of the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of the
adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11. |
TCP/25679/A P/02043/03 Parish/Name: Wroxall
Ward: Wroxall and Godshill Registration
Date: 15/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Mr and Mrs M D Baker Extension at
first floor level to form lounge, kitchen/dining area with balcony on north
east elevation Meadow View, St.
Johns Road, Wroxall, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383EL |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This report is
before the Development Control Committee as the local Member, Councillor Yates,
is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated
procedure. Local Member initially
considered application contrary to policy but has since confirmed in writing
insufficient information to process as delegated decision.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
If determined at
this meeting the application will have taken fourteen weeks, this being the
earliest Committee date following local Member request.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The site is
located on the eastern side of St. Johns Road with former railway line to the
rear. The former railway is not a designated Public Right of Way but is used by
the public and is identified in UDP to be safeguarded for sustainable transport
purposes.
The property is
well set back from the road in a line of similar scale/mass bungalows in an
elevated position; land rises to the rear.
The property is link detached, of buff artificial stone under a brown
concrete tiled roof and is one of an identical handed pair.
The site is
located on the main approach road into Wroxall which is predominantly rural to
the north with residential built-up area to the south.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/25679 -
Extension at first floor level to form lounge, kitchen/dining area with balcony
on south west and north east elevations - refused July 2003.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Consent sought for
extension at first floor level to form lounge, kitchen/dining area with balcony
on north east elevation. The proposal
is a revision on a previously refused application. A new window is proposed on the front gable with two side
elevation windows and patio door at first floor level at the rear.
Scheme involves
raising ridge by one metre to provide first floor accommodation comprising
lounge, kitchen/diner, bathroom and balcony.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site is within the
Wroxall development envelope boundary adjacent the designated AONB (to the
rear). Policies D1 (Standards of
Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) are relevant.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
No Highway
Engineer comment necessary.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Parish Council
recommend refusal as amended plan does not overcome objections as indicated
previously, i.e. increased roof height, obtrusive balcony and setting of
precedent.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
None.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
This application
seeks consent for revised scheme of scheme that was previously refused in July
2003. This proposal has reduced the
ridge height, deleted the balcony on front elevation, proposes smaller window opening
at first floor front gable and the patio door at first floor on the rear
elevation has reduced in width.
Main consideration
is whether the proposal is of appropriate scale, mass and design to the
original and adjoining dwellings, impact on character of area and neighbouring
privacy in particular.
The property is
well setback from the road in a line of similar scale and mass bungalows but
due to its setback and elevated position, I am of the view a refusal on street
scene and prevailing pattern of development would not be sustained on appeal in
this location. The first floor dormers
on the side elevation serve bathroom and kitchen, these will look into the
neighbouring garden but due to their size/distance present minimal impact.
The provision of balcony
on the rear elevation is an alien introduction in design terms when viewing the
rear line of properties, however, as the application site is at the end of the
line of similar properties, the balcony presents minimum impact on neighbouring
privacy and does not adversely impact on the character of the area or
designated adjacent AONB.
With regard the
Parish Council concern about precedence, each scheme is treated on its
merits. The revised scheme has
significantly altered overall potential impact of development by reduction in
roof height together with simplified elevational details resulting in the
proposal being less visually dominant.
This has tipped balance in favour of 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 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 of 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
DECISION
The revised scheme
has overcome the previous reasons for refusal and proposal presents acceptable
development with minimum impact on neighbouring amenity, no adverse impact on
character of the area and adjacent designated AONB.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
Construction
of the extension 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 |
Before
the balcony hereby approved is brought into use, a solid/opaque screen to a
minimum height of 1.8 metres shall be erected on the southern perimeter and
shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and
amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12. |
TCP/25851 P/00709/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor
Ward: Ventnor East Registration
Date: 09/09/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Kingcross Ltd Demolition of
buildings; 3 storey building to form
14 flats; formation of vehicular
access & parking area Clarendon Press
Building, Market Street, Ventnor, PO38 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested
by local Member, Mrs B Lawson, at the time of submission.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
If determined at
the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 20 January 2004, the
application will have taken nineteen weeks to determine; the delay in
processing due to negotiations on design.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Site of
approximately 0.05 hectares located on the south east corner of the junction of
Market Street with Pound Lane at Ventnor.
The site is presently occupied by a tall block abutting both Market
Street and the road directly opposite Pound Lane which leads to the Council car
park, a building of three storeys constructed in masonry, mostly stone with
much of the facades rendered. The
building is known as the Clarendon Press.
The area is one of
intimate character with buildings abutting or nearly abutting the carriageway
or the rear of the footpath. Directly
opposite, on the northern side of the entrance to the car park is a
comparatively modern public convenience building and to the east a terrace of
four, small scale, two storey cottages in a slightly elevated position behind a
stone boundary wall. To the north west
of the site, on the opposite side of the Market Street is the former Hole in
the Wall building, a one and a half storey rendered, masonry building under a
slate roof now fallen into extensive disrepair, whilst directly opposite on the
other corner of Market Street are two small cottages of rendered and painted
finish, two storey buildings under slated roofs.
Immediately
adjoining the site on its southern side is a further pair of two storey semi-detached
buildings, one of which has a former shop front but it would appear that the
buildings are used purely residentially.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Outline permission
for a four storey block of ten flats over ground floor car parking was approved
on this site in June 1988 and, in April 1989, outline planning permission for
eighteen flats was approved.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Full consent
sought for erection of a block of fourteen flats, each two bedroom but varying
in size from between 47 metres square and 58 square metres, each comprising two
bedrooms, bathroom and living room incorporating a small kitchen area. Building is shown to comprise five essential
elements and of two and three storeys, distinguished by changes of material,
eaves heights and steps in the facade.
The site also incorporates seven car parking spaces situated at the
eastern end, accessed off the existing car park.
The plan also
shows that the adjoining properties, numbers 5 and 6 Market Street adjoining
the western end of the Clarendon Press building and fronting Market Street are
within the ownership of the applicants.
The block runs parallel to the access serving the Council car park and,
at its closest point, the proposed building is within seven metres of the
adjoining buildings to the south which front Albert Street.
The plans show
finishes to be in facing brickwork, some elements render; feature brick details
to window heads, string courses and stone sills with plain tiled roofs which
have a mainly hipped character. It is
also proposed to install sash windows with a vertical emphasis and to install
small canopies to bays and over front doors on the front (north) elevation.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
PPG3 - Housing
refers. PPG6 regarding town centres and
retail development; PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment also applies.
UDP inset R shows
site to be a designated housing site and located within the designated
Conservation Area for Ventnor. Policy
H6 regarding high density development applies.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Environmental
Health Officer (Contaminated Land) recommends conditions be attached to any
consent granted.
Environmental
Health Officer offers no adverse comment subject to adequate safeguards
regarding transmission of noise between dwelling units.
Highways Engineer
considers that one car parking space per flat should be provided but not
accessed off public car park.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Ventnor Town
Council can see no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect
of this proposal.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer
has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received, however, it is not anticipated that there will be any implications
regarding crime and disorder.
EVALUATION
This application
relates to the development of fourteen flats on a scheduled site within the
developed area of Ventnor. The site has
a history of residential permission and despite the location within the town
centre, the site is not expected to be developed for anything but housing.
Determining
factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle; traffic related
issues, the effect of the development in design and visual impact on the
Conservation Area and effect on adjoining properties.
In terms of policy
and principle, as stated above, the development for residential purposes on
this scheduled site is not in question.
The density is slightly less than that which has been approved in
principle previously but the quality of accommodation is satisfactory for this
site.
Whilst the
development comprises a great proportion of site coverage, the pattern of
development which prevails in this location is reflected in the proposals. Open land remains at the rear (south) of the
site giving a small amount of relatively enclosed amenity area.
In design terms
the scale and mass of the building proposed reflects that which it is proposed
to replace and in terms of the massing, the appearance is broken up into
elements which have a relatively vertical appearance, consistent with many of
the other taller properties in the area, especially those properties fronting
Albert Street. The height of the
building is similar to existing Clarendon Press building.
In terms of the
effect on the Conservation Area, it is felt that the scheme protects and
enhances the character of the area.
From a highways
point of view, vehicular access to a small parking area at the eastern end of
the site will be gained from the car park.
Ideally the Engineers consider that a single space for each flat would
be preferable but in reality the scheme is likely to provide parking for six
vehicles rather than the seven shown and therefore provision will be slightly
less than 50%. Zone 3 suggests 0 - 75%
of normal provision in this town centre location.
Additional details
supplied with the application indicate that a capacity check on the drainage
has been carried out and subject to certain safeguards, the site can be
adequately drained.
A ground condition
survey has been undertaken by consulting engineers which concludes that
designed foundations would need to be installed but that such foundations would
need to include piling to approximately 7 - 8 metres in depth.
In summary it is
felt that the development proposed is acceptable and positively enhances the
Conservation Area but, contrary to the Highway Engineer's preferences, a
limited amount of car parking will be provided off the public car park to the
east, six spaces for the fourteen flats.
Although three planning applications have been submitted in respect of
three sites in this central area, only this one is applicable to process at
this current time as negotiations are continuing on the other two sites. However, this site's redevelopment will form
a large proportion of the overall regeneration of this central area which
should be encouraged in principle.
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 of 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
The redevelopment
of this site for residential purposes is consistent with UDP policy and
National Planning Guidance regarding housing and matters relating to
conservation and the historic environment.
It is felt that the redevelopment of the site as proposed would form the
first step in a comprehensive redevelopment of this central area which will, in
the long term, rejuvenate the town centre in a style which is consistent with
the historic fabric of Ventnor.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
area between the building and the back of the footway shall be surfaced in
accordance with a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
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 building is 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. |
|
5 |
No
dwelling shall be occupied until six car spaces have been provided within the
site shown on the plan hereby approved.
The spaces shall be marked, surfaced and drained in accordance with a
scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the commencement of works on site. Reason: In
the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Management
scheme - K07 |
|
7 |
The
windows and doors, fascia and bargeboards included in this development shall
be constructed in timber in accordance with the approved drawings. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Rate of
discharge of surface water - U01 |
|
9 |
Waste disposal,
leachate - U24 |
|
10 |
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
and 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. 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 11A of the Environmental Protection Act
1990. |
OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) TCP/19342/B Unauthorised
deposit of inert waste at former
& TCP/19342/J Brading
Golf Course, Carpenters Road, Brading
Officer: G Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575
To consider what action is necessary to resolve the breach of planning control following Counsel’s opinion. Breach of planning control is the depositing of inert waste material without planning permission.
Originally there were two planning permissions relating to the land known as Brading Golf Course (renamed for clarity as the “original” and the “extension of land”). Subsequently these areas of land were designated as European Sites and both include a Section 106 Agreement limiting residential occupation, access and constructing the course to an International standard.
One of these applications was clearly not implemented (the extension of land) and was sought to be renewed under TCP/19342/J. Despite requests for additional information over the last two years none was forthcoming and the application was finally disposed of under the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 25 (11). It is important to mention this application as it may have allowed some flexibility to the layout of the original site should that original site need to be rearranged.
The information
required for the extension of land was complicated as it tied in with the
requests for information for the perceived need to review the extant planning
permission of the original land under Section 50 of the Conservation (Natural
Habitats and c.) Regulations 1994.
This legislation
appeared somewhat toothless in that it stated (Section 48)(2)) that the
developer should provide information required by the Local Planning Authority
(e.g. the drainage regime) but unfortunately there were no powers to enforce
this. Thus, despite requests and
negotiations no information was forthcoming.
Plans and information were promised but to no avail. The Environment Agency and English Nature
have been involved throughout. In
essence the Environment Agency have given an exemption licence to the deposit
of waste required for an extant planning permission.
Finally, because of this impasse Counsel’s opinion was sought and following the review of all files and the developer’s comments it was concluded that the original permission (if accepting that there was a valid permission which he does not conclude on) was implemented and completed very quickly. The records show eighteen holes and greens were completed. The site then went dead for a number of years and approximately four years ago new works were started. The developer acknowledged that the existing golf course (now overgrown) could not be drained adequately for all year use and therefore the existing approval had to be “lifted” in height to obtain better drainage.
Counsel has
concluded that the works on site do not represent the former planning
permission and are therefore unauthorised.
He refers to Section 56(3) of the Habitat Regs;
“Where
the Authority ascertain that the carrying out of the development would
adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, they nevertheless need not
proceed under the Regulations 50 and 51 if and so
long as they consider that there is no likelihood of the development being
carried out or continued.”
He then concludes
that the fact that these unauthorised operations have been undertaken in order
to provide a playable golf course is the clearest possible evidence that there
is no prospect of the golf course as approved being completed and subsequently
used. He advises that the Council may
therefore reasonably conclude that there is no need to proceed under the 1994
Regulations because there is no likelihood of that development being continued.
In deciding to
take enforcement action and addressing any planning considerations the following policies remain appropriate:
G6 Development In Areas Liable
To Flooding
G6 The
Council will not permit development in areas liable to flooding, or inundation
from the sea, or where such problems could arise as a result of the proposed
scheme, and will seek to keep such areas free from development. Where, in exceptional circumstances, planning
permission is granted for development, the Council shall be satisfied that:
a adequate precautions and measures have been taken to minimise the risk to life and property;
b
adverse effects on adjoining or associated areas will not be exacerbated;
c
there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a result.
Development in areas liable to flooding will not be permitted if either the development or the precautionary measures will have an adverse affect on the ecology of the watercourses and adjoining land associated with them.
C8 Nature Conservation as a
Material Consideration
C8 Only in exceptional circumstances will development be permitted if it adversely affects ecologically sensitive areas, protected or endangered species and their habitats. The level of protection afforded to such areas will be related to international, national, or local importance.
C9 Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation
C9 Development will be permitted where the Council can ensure the protection of features of international importance which have been identified by the designation (or proposed designation) of sites under international conventions and directives. Where overriding public interest leads to development being permitted, compensatory measures to ensure the coherence of the international site will be secured.
C10 Sites of National Importance
for Nature Conservation
C10 Development will not be permitted if it would be likely to destroy or adversely affect directly or indirectly a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or National Nature Reserve.
Brading Town Council comment:
“Brading Town Council fully support the Isle of Wight Council’s view that there is no likelihood of the development at Marsh Farm being continued.
The activities being undertaken on the site are extremely detrimental to the visual amenity and an environmental disaster. The work has now been continuing for four years, we still question whether the material being dumped there is inert, this must be having an adverse effect on the adjacent designated sites.
Brading Town Council therefore fully support the Isle of Wight Council’s steps to take enforcement action and would strongly urge that this action is taken with urgency”.
English Nature are taking further advice but appreciate the pragmatic approach although ideally they would like to see the material removed from the flood plain.
Members should be
aware that under the Habitat Regulation’s requirement to review existing
decisions and consents (under Section 50) that once reviewed their decision can
lead to; affirm the permission; to modify it; or revoke it. To revoke planning permission would also
carry the burden of compensation of which I would estimate that for a scheme of
this magnitude would be approximately £2 - £6 million.
Therefore, on site
we have an area of land with approximately 1-2 metres of inert waste placed to
the west of the existing access road and adjoining the European designated site
and SSSI. This development will need to
be screened under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 to establish whether it is
development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Counsel’s opinion has brought our attention away from reviewing the perceived extant planning permission to one that there is a breach on site. With hindsight the complicated nature of this development could have been tackled by taking Counsel’s opinion much earlier but the spirit of the Habitat Regulations was to resolve the matter with the developer which we have attempted to do. Rather than dwell on the process leading up to the position we are in today I feel it is important to acknowledge that there is a breach of planning control and also to look forward to a position where we want to end up. I believe it is therefore important to seek an area of land that relates to the surrounding environment that is appropriately landscaped and with minimal visual impact. Therefore, it is important that to get to where we want to go the Enforcement Notice should be tailored appropriately. Arguments can be made that the inert waste should be removed from the site but this should not be driven for punitive reasons. The adjoining sites are very sensitive because of their European designations and accordingly these must be taken into consideration through any enforcement action. I therefore conclude that Counsel’s opinion has given the clarity that we sought and now acts as a basis for this matter to be taken forward and resolved.
Whilst
it is accepted that the recommendation to commence enforcement action may
interfere with the rights and freedoms of the developer this has to be balanced
with the rights and freedoms of others.
Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the developers it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others. It is also considered that the
enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public
interest.
5 Site visit by Members
accompanied by Officers. In conjunction
with taking enforcement action.
(b) TCP/22370B/P2241/02 Outline for residential development (houses and
flats) accessed off Sherbourne Avenue, Ryde
To seek assurance from Members that £929,000 of certified expenditure invested to date at the industrial estate at Westridge satisfies the requirements of the Development Control Committee resolution made on the 20 May 2003.
On 20 May 2003
Members approved the above scheme subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering:
1. Development
of Westridge, relocation of the business and staff of Neutrik (UK) to Westridge
using all the proceeds of sale of said company and part of the site at
Sherbourne.
2. Pay a
commuted sum of £100,000 to the Isle of Wight Council for education
facilities.
3. Transfer
of the area of land including buildings and open space to the north west to
SARA (Sherbourne Avenue Residents Association) when they reach a charitable
status.
4. Transfer
the area of land to the north west to the Isle of Wight Council for educational
purposes.
5. 20% of
the residential units built to be social housing to be sold to a registered
social landlord at 50% of market price for such dwellings.
The Section 106
Agreement is in the process of being formalised but because of certain
ownership arrangements that part of the site currently occupied by Neutrik (UK)
is in fact owned by the parent company (Neutrik AG) an offshore company, as
opposed to the applicant (Neutrik UK) which is a subsidiary company of Neutrik
AG. Neutrik (UK) is the company which
is moving to Westridge.
Monies from the
sale of Neutrik AG part of the Sherbourne land will amount to £425,000. The expenditure and investment to date on
the Westridge site is in the order of £929,000 (this has been independently
certified by an accountant) and certainly represents the Members’ objective
that a substantial investment in Westridge should come from the
sale/development of the existing site.
The total investment by Neutrik (UK) in the Westridge site will be in
the region of £1.4m.
However the money
which has gone into Westridge to date has come from independent sources via
Neutrik UK. All proceeds of sale of
Sherbourne will go to the parent company.
No money from existing site has or will go into Westridge
development. It is understood further
independent monies will also be invested in Westridge. The applicant’s
solicitor has made it clear that money
for the sale of Sherbourne would go to the parent company (Neutrik AG). In effect the actual proceeds of sale will
not be invested in Westridge but a sum significantly in excess has already been
invested.
If Neutrik AG had
been required to invest the actual sale proceeds from the sale of part of
Sherbourne it would have been necessary to close down the operation at
Sherbourne and await the construction of the new unit at Westridge. This would have seriously damaged the
business of Neutrik (UK).
Therefore, it is
suggested that it is sufficient to accept that the actual level of investment
is far over and above that previously anticipated and also accept that Neutrik
have made a commitment to the Island which will in turn secure the employment
places.
If the planning permission is not granted then the following financial benefits would not go to the community:
Possible loss of £100,000 financial contribution
for educational purposes.
1. Loss of
transfer of building to SARA for community and with associated land.
2. Loss of
land for educational purposes.
3. Loss of
housing and affordable housing.
1. Continue
with the resolution of the 20 May 2003 and pursue the monies from Sherbourne are
passed to Neutrik AG via Neutrik UK.
2. Accept
that the level of investment of £929,000 to date exceeds that envisaged on 20
May 2003 and that this satisfies the resolution of the Development Control
Committee and that this can be a part variation of the existing resolution to
the effect that the actual proceeds of sale of Sherbourne need not be invested
in Westridge.
3. Refuse
planning permission accepting that the £100,000 contribution would not be
forthcoming to the Council; that the community building being made over to a
local charitable trust would not take place; accept that the application is
likely to go to appeal and accepting that the Government has asked Local
Authorities to look closely at reusing industrial land for residential
purposes. There will also be a loss of
housing and affordable housing to the Island.
This matter was addressed at the 20 May 2003 Development Control Committee. The amendment suggested has little or no bearing on Human Rights over and above the issues previously explored.
Accept that the level of investment of £929,000 to date exceeds that envisaged on 20 May 2003 and that this satisfies the resolution of the Development Control Committee and that this can be a part variation of the existing resolution to the effect that the actual proceeds of sale of Sherbourne need not be invested in Westridge.