REPORT TO
Development Control Committee
TUESDAY, 20 APRIL
2004
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 (REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES) – ITEM NO. 14
Terrace of 7 houses to be used for holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (additional information relating to mooring allocation proposed and within existing marina) (readvertised application), land north of Redshank Way, Binfield, Newport
This is an Addendum to Item
No. 14 (page 116-125).
· Committee is required to determine an application which is merely an amendment to a partially implemented extant permission granted in November 1988. This was a conditional permission for 96 units subject to a legal agreement which related to a variety of issues including the provision of moorings within the marina area and the occupation of the individual units for holiday purposes only.
· Developer is able to rely on the 1988 permission because it remains extant having been partially implemented by the construction of 41 units on the site several years ago. This means that there continues to be permission for the remaining 55 units.
· Development over recent years has generated an enormous amount of correspondence which has involved Officers investigating enforcement related complaints, various complaints about alleged maladministration on the part of the Council, the need to seek Counsel’s advice and various reports submitted to this Committee.
· In my view Members should discount or give only minimal weight to the vast majority of issues being raised by residents when determining this application.
· My view is that Members should rely on two reports which were submitted to the former Planning Committee at a meeting held on 30 January 2001.
· A report with significant legal input invited Members to consider responses from a consultation exercise as to the way forward in planning terms at Island Harbour. Report identified four issues relating to an undetermined application submitted in 1994; the vexed question of the provision of moorings within the private marina as opposed to the commercial marina; restriction of occupation of the individual units, and the desirability (or otherwise) of the completion of the development in accordance with the extant permission. In the context of these issues, Members were offered a number of options but decided to support the Officer’s recommendations.
· Take no further action in respect of the undetermined application.
· Agree that all units should have access to a berth in the private marina.
· To retain the 42-week occupancy limit for all units.
· Another report dealt with two requests for amendments to the approved scheme. Members accepted Officer’s recommendations which included agreeing to amendments in terms of siting and elevational appearance in respect of the seven units which are the subject of this report.
· The latest report prepared by the Case Officer (Mr Hepburn) sets out on p.117 the nature of the proposed amendment to the approved scheme and also addresses the allocation of berths to residents; a point which has caused some Members concern.
· The report accurately deals with matters relating to policy and consultee responses.
· On the basis of my own investigations and the information included in this addendum, I conclude that the numerous representations made in respect of this application raise a number of issues and points which are not relevant to the determination of this application. Those points which are material considerations should only be given minimal weight and/or can be covered by planning condition and clearly do not offer a sustainable reason(s) for withholding permission.
· I should reiterate that this application only relates to amendments to an extant permission, amended in January 2001 (see above), which involves the provision of dormer windows as part of what appears to be a larger roof structure for each of the individual units. However, at the request of Members the Case Officer has investigated the issue of the provision of mooring spaces for residents within the private marina and this has resulted in a further proposed amendment to the approved scheme in terms of the location and arrangement of the moorings.
· The applicant’s agent has provided details of the new pontoon to be constructed and this will provide sufficient facilities to allow twelve moorings within the commercial block to be relocated as well as providing mooring facilities for the occupants of the seven new units the subject of the application. The Case Officer will deal with this issue as part of his presentation and is recommending appropriate conditions to control the situation. Members’ attention is drawn to condition nos. 3, 4 and 13 on pp. 122 & 124 of the latest report.
The application is an amendment to an extant permission which initially only related to the design of the individual units but now includes information required by Members in respect of mooring facilities which are covered by condition in the recommendation for approval.
Having assessed the consultee
responses on various technical issues, the disproportionate number of
representations (if you analyse the nature of the application), and the
information required by this Committee, I am satisfied that there is no
sustainable reason for further delaying the determination of this application,
which was submitted over a year ago.
However, it is recognised that
there are a number of outstanding issues in relation to the overall development
that are causing concern to residents which still need to be investigated by
the Council, and consequently I am instructing the Enforcement Team Leader to
give some priority to concluding this work with, if necessary, the appropriate
requisite action to rectify any problems.
Chris Hougham, Development Control
Manager
Tel: (01983) 823565
e-mail:
[email protected]