|
1. |
NEW APPEALS LODGED |
|
|
|
|
TCP/14373/G |
Mr C Dixson against refusal for detached house and garage and formation of vehicular access at Tredegar, 15 Wood Street, Ryde. |
|
|
|
TCP/9477/D |
Mr R Churchill against refusal for demolition of garages; conversion of coach house to dwelling, construction of terrace of three houses and double garage, land rear of 2-12 Nelson Street, Ryde. |
|
|
|
TCP/16072/E |
Mr and Mrs Bennett against refusal for single storey extension and first floor extension to form a flat at 14 Victoria Road, Sandown. |
|
|
|
TCP/13942/E |
Mrs B Walker against refusal for conversion of double garage to form a dwelling, land rear of 1 Orchardleigh Road, Shanklin. |
|
|
|
TCP/22633/B |
S J & C Dollery against refusal for removal of occupancy condition at Ashey View, Ashey Road, Ryde. |
|
|
|
E/21784/A |
Dr G Ciccognani against Enforcement Notice relating to means of access, The Orchard, Undercliff Drive, St. Lawrence. |
|
|
|
E/24939/A |
Mr P Norris against Enforcement Notice relating to the erection of roadside fencing at Bembridge Boatyard, Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge. |
|
|
|
E/24939/B |
Mr P Norris against Enforcement Notice relating to change of use of land to storage of builders materials, trailers, motor storage and repair, siting of porable units at Bembridge Boatyard, Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge. |
|
|
|
TCP/14584/F |
Mr and Mrs Mitchell against refusal for rebuilding of barn to form annexed unit of holiday accommodation at South Barn, Brockley Barns, Calbourne Road, Newport.
|
|
|
|
E/21249/G |
Godshill Park Developments against Enforcement Notice relating to breach of condition in respect of carriageway construction at Medham Village, Medham Farm Lane, off Newport Road, Northwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
HEARING/INQUIRY DATES |
|
|
|
|
No new dates to report |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS |
||
|
|
(a) |
TCP/25155/A |
Mr B Cross against refusal for four storey block of nine flats and associated landscaping (revised scheme), land between Prince Consort and Victoria Retirement Hotel, St. Thomas Street, Ryde. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 18 June 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed – 8 December 2003 |
|
|
|
Main issue of the case as
identified by the Inspector: |
||
|
|
·
The visual impact of the proposal on the adjoining
buildings and on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: |
||
|
|
· The proposal is identical in all respects to development approved in January 2003 apart from a fifth floor flat within the mansard roof thereby increasing the number of units from eight to nine. |
||
|
|
· The external differences are that the proposed roof would be 0.5 m higher and would include windows on all four sides. |
||
|
|
· The small increase in height and the insertion of a dormer window would not compromise or detract from the setting or grandeur of the Prince Consort building to the west. |
||
|
|
· The increase in height would have no discernable impact on the character and appearance of the other neighbour, the former Victoria Hotel. |
||
|
|
· The previously approved scheme was the result of lengthy and detailed negotiations with the Council whose aim was to achieve a building appropriate to this important site. |
||
|
|
· The nature and degree of the proposed changes are such that they would not materially alter either the appearance of the building itself or its relationship to the adjoining properties.
|
||
|
|
· There would be no additional impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
TCP/25353 |
Mr and Mrs Hernes against refusal for two storey side extension at 4 Chapel Road, Binstead, Ryde. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 11 March 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed – 8 December 2003 |
|
|
|
Main issue of the case as
identified by the Inspector: |
||
|
|
·
The visual impact of the extension on the dwelling
and on the wider street scene. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: |
||
|
|
·
The extension will change the proportions of this
pair of semi-detached houses. |
||
|
|
·
Notwithstanding, the extension would not be a
prominent feature as there are only limited views of the site from the road. |
||
|
|
·
The two pairs of semi-detached houses have been
considerably altered over the years which have affected the original symmetry
and detailing. |
||
|
|
· The proposed addition would not be unduly out of scale or character with the present dwelling or the wider street scene. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
TCP/9254/M |
Mr and Mrs Stapleton against refusal for demolition of garages and the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses with garages, land between 18A and 19 Castle Street, Ryde. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 22 August 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed – 10 December 2003 |
|
|
|
Main issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector: |
||
|
|
·
The design of the building in relation to the street
scene and the Conservation Area. |
||
|
|
·
The impact of the proposal on nearby properties,
particularly in terms of loss of outlook and privacy. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: |
||
|
|
·
The site at present makes no positive contribution to
the character and appearance of its surroundings. |
||
|
|
·
The proposed development would not fulfil the
objectives of PPG15 to ensure that replacement development respects,
harmonises with and enhances the established character of the area. |
||
|
|
·
The development would be harmful to the character and
appearance of the street scene, the Conservation Area and thereby contrary to
UDP policies. |
||
|
|
·
The high flank walls of the proposed development
would have an unacceptably overbearing impact on the adjoining properties,
seriously affecting their outlook and present level of amenity. |
||
|
|
· The rear elevation of the proposed development would be too close to the rear boundary and would result in a serious loss of privacy to the properties to the north. |
||
|
|
·
The first floor glazing would directly overlook the private
gardens to either side. |
||
|
|
·
The scale and design of the proposal pays
insufficient attention to the proximity of adjoining buildings, the residents
of which would suffer a considerable degree of harm through loss of privacy
and outlook. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
TCP/25595 |
Mr C Piper and Mrs P Bonsu against refusal of outline for detached house and formation of vehicular access, land adjacent Marshlands, Afton Road, Freshwater. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 10 July 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed – 12 December 2003 |
|
|
|
Main issue of the case as
identified by the Inspector: |
||
|
|
· The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: |
||
|
|
· The site is clearly in the countryside and the proposal does not meet the criteria of the UDP policies which allow new development in such a location. |
||
|
|
· The proposed dwelling does not constitute acceptable infilling of a small gap in a group of houses. |
||
|
|
· There is no evidence that the proposal requires a rural location or would benefit the rural economy. |
||
|
|
· The proposal is unacceptable in principle and conflicts with UDP policies G1, G5 and H9. |
||
|
|
· The development would be an intrusive feature and would have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the area. |
||
|
|
· The proposal would not maintain or protect the landscape in general or the AONB in particular and is contrary to policies G1, G4, G5, H9, C1 and C2. |
||
|
|
· There is some risk that the proposed siting would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining building in terms of loss of outlook. |
||
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.