PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 20 APRIL 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

20 APRIL 2004

1	A/02322/B P/01287/03 including entrance to Medina Leisure Centre, Fairlee Road, Newport, PO30 17 Permanent Banner sites.	Newport	Split Decision
2	TCP/02700/F P/02228/03 9, Pier Street, Sandown, PO36 Demolition of existing building; construction of 4 storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor.	Sandown	Conditional Approval
3	TCP/07599/H P/00708/03 former depot/garage site, Pound Lane, Ventnor, PO38 Erection of 14 flats in a 3 storey block and parking (revised plans) (re-advertised application).	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
4	TCP/07676/F P/02171/03 land between Chameleon and Whitecliff Lodge, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO35 Renewal: 2 bungalows with vehicular access	Bembridge	Conditional Approval
5	TCP/09052/C P/02530/03 land adjacent 51, Albert Road, Cowes, PO31 Outline for terrace of 3 houses with parking; alterations to & construction of new vehicular access, (revised scheme).	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
6	TCP/10169/F P/01680/03 land rear of 33 and 35 Albany Road and fronting, Catherine Terrace, Newport, PO30 Demolition of garage block; terrace of 4 houses.	Newport	Conditional Approval
7	TCP/11199/E P/00093/04 former telephone exchange, off, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38 3HH Siting of portable building for use as a training room.	Godshill	Conditional Approval
8	TCP/15752/W P/00054/04 Island View Chalets, Fort Warden Road, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390DA Demolition of two chalets; replacement pair of semi-detached holiday bungalows.	Totland	Conditional Approval
9	TCP/16015/L P/02255/03 George Jenkins Transport, Bigbury Farm, Alverstone Road, Apse Heath, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360LH Building to house containers/trailers.	Newchurch	Conditional Approval
10	TCP/18086/B P/01431/03 Lakeside, High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LJ Hotel & conference room with link to existing restaurant (Environmental Statement submitted) (readvertised application).	Wootton	Refusal
11	TCP/19235/D P/00644/04 land between Hillway Annexe and Woodclose, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO35 Renewal: Bungalow with integral garage; formation of vehicular access.	Bembridge	Conditional Approval
12	TCP/25090/B P/00261/04 Byeways, Broadway, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390BL Pair of semi-detached houses (revised scheme)(corrected description)(readvertised application).	Totland	Conditional Approval
13	TCP/25275/A P/02473/03 land adjoining Hill House, Queens Road/2 School Green Road/Brookbank and Brookside Forge, Brookside Freshwater, PO40 Demolition of hotel; residential development comprising a total of 36 dwellings in a mixed development of houses & flats with associated parking; formation of vehicular & pedestrian access (revised plans).	Freshwater	Conditional Approval
14	TCP/25521 P/00644/03 land north of, Redshank Way, Newport, PO30 Terrace of 7 houses to be used for holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (additional information relating to mooring allocation proposed & within existing marina)(readvertised application).	Newport	Conditional Approval
15	TCP/25843/A P/00163/04 3 Nelson Close, East Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO326QP 2 storey extension to form annexed accommodation (revised scheme).	East Cowes	Conditional Approval

A/02322/B P/01287/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Fairlee

Registration Date: 10/07/2003 - Advertisement Consent

Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Isle of Wight Council (Wight Leisure)

17 permanent banner sites within Ryde (2), Cowes(1), Newport (2), Sandown(5), Shanklin(1), Freshwater(1), Colwell(2), Bembridge(1), Wootton(1) & St. Helens(1)

including entrance to Medina Leisure Centre, Fairlee Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application has been submitted by an arm of the Isle of Wight Council, and since it relates to 17 different locations across the Island raising a number of policy issues it is appropriate for Members to determine.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If determined at this meeting application will have taken 41 weeks to determine. This protracted period of time has been a result of the negotiations to reduce the scale of the proposal to a more acceptable level.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal relates to 17 separate sites as listed on the revised schedule which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

The following specifications have also been submitted:

1. Maximum size of banners to be 1.1 metres by 7 metres.

2. Banners to be either painted/vinyl letter on a PVC background.

3. Banners to be securely fixed at their locations with either rope or zip ties.

4. Any banner above a carriageway would be a minimum of 5.5 metres from the ground to the bottom of the banner.

5. Banners to be erected a maximum of 3 weeks prior to the event.

6. All banners will be removed within 1 week after the event has taken place.

7. The management of all approved banner sites will be undertaken by Wight Leisure, the leisure department of the Isle of Wight Council.

We have also been requested to consider as part of this proposal the positioning of a single permanent banner frame to be located on the verge outside the entrance to Medina Leisure Centre. The frame is to be constructed of 50 by 50 mm box section steel which is to be galvanised then powder coated. The colour will match the existing site signage. The frame will be supported on four legs with the distance to the ground to the top of the frame of 2 metres and with the structure being 7.3 metres long. It is not proposed to locate a frame at any other site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) applies to all the locations concerned.

"Planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of the following matters safety.

(a) That the proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians."

Policy D6 (Advertisements in Defined Settlements):

"Planning applications for external advertisements within defined settlements will only be approved where they

(a) are of a high standard of design;

(b) relate well to the building on which they are fitted;

(d) are located so as not to cause or create a safety hazard.

Policy D7 (Advertisements in the Countryside):

"Outside the defined settlements the display of advertisements will only be approved where they are located on, or directly adjacent to, the premises to which the advertisement relates, or where they provide advance directions or warnings in the interests of public safety and

(a) they are appropriate and sympathetic to the surrounding area;

(b) they do not detract from the visual amenity of the area;

(d) they are constructed of traditional materials and are of appropriate size and colour;

(e) that outside the street lit areas they are not illuminated.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineers have indicated that having spoken to their Traffic Section with regards to the locations of the site and the impacts on visibility and road safety they object to the following proposals (references relate to revised schedule (see appendix):

2.2 Newport Road, Cowes (within a signal control zone so refuse on traffic safety)
4.4 Fairlee Road, Newport (within a traffic control zone so refuse on traffic safety)

· 5.2 The Broadway, Sandown (the sign on the playground) (on safety issues due to location on a bend)

5.4 High Street, Sandown (refuse sign located above a zebra crossing)
5.6 Culver Parade, Sandown (refuse at a busy junction traffic may be distracted)
9.1 Sandown Road, Bembridge (refuse due to distraction to traffic)
10.1 Kite Hill, Wootton (refuse this is within a traffic control junction)
11.3 Rowborough Corner, St. Helens (refuse this is within a signal control junction)

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Outlined below are the responses from the various Parish and Town Councils relating to the signs within their particular areas.

Sandown Town Council (signs 5.1 - 5.6). No objection.

Shanklin Town Council (sign 6.1). Recommend approval.

Freshwater Parish Council (sign 8.1). Support but feel 4 weeks too long a period for signs to be displayed and would like to see this reduced.

Bembridge Parish Council (sign 9.1). Recommend approval.

Brading Parish Council (sign 11.3). No objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letters received from Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and Isle of Wight Society. Main points summarised below:

Express concern that grouping of sites in one application allows most environmentally damaging to be bundled in with those which might be more acceptable.

Have the following comments to make on specific sites:

2.2 Verge outside Northwood Garage, Newport Road. This is a safety hazard to motorists therefore contrary to UDP policy D6d.

4.4 Junction Seaclose and Fairlee Road. A distraction to motorists and site where Council recently improved appearance by landscaping work.

5.2 Railings to Battery Gardens opposite The Heights, Sandown. Absolutely no reason to have two installations within a few yards of each other. Sign would contribute to highway clutter out of keeping with street scene and contrary to D6c.

8.2 and 8.3 Colwell Common. Perhaps the most environmentally damaging of the sites left in application. Colwell Common a substantial open space serves as a village green and should be accorded same status as St. Helens Green where proposed banner signs withdrawn due to Conservation Area status. Any sign a gross intrusion on unspoilt open space.

9.1 Verge to Bembridge Airport. This in the countryside and highly intrusive sign also a distraction to motorists and safety hazard. Contrary to UDP policy D7 a, b, c.

10.1 Kite Hill. Distraction to drivers at busy junction.

11.3 Rowborough Corner. This has same characteristics as 9.1, countryside location does not relate to site where events will occur also traffic hazard and contrary to UDP policy D7 a, b and c.

· Concerned over continual presence of frames, think scale of banners and supporting framework is excessive.

· Only positive comment is they may provide facility for use by other organisations, stopping flyposting.

· Idea purely commercial without any sensitivity for visual enjoyment by tourists.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Members may recall when dealing with a number of unauthorised signs over recent years the point was consistently made by certain parties that there were no formalised locations where events could be advertised. Accordingly, Wight Leisure were encouraged to address this problem and to that end, this application was originally submitted in June 2003. At that time, the proposal took the form of three applications relating to some 35 locations across the Island. Following the closure of the consultation period with regards to the original proposals discussions were held with Wight Leisure enquiring whether they wished to withdraw a number of the sites which had been identified as having particular problems relating to amenity and highway safety. In that context, those proposed locations that fell within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within any of the Conservation Areas on the Island were withdrawn together with a number of sites which the Highway Engineer initially indicated would be unacceptable.

As a consequence, the revised list of sites which reduced the proposal down to 17 locations was submitted in February 2004. These were concentrated in one remaining application. Of these 17 locations, 16 remain from the original proposal with the remaining site which was a proposal for a sign in close proximity to the roundabout at Brading Road Ryde being relocated up the access road towards the Westridge Centre so that it now faces the exit from Tescos car park.

The Advertisement Regulations indicate that control may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety taking account of any other material factors. In that context, I consider that the Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies (TR6, D6 and D7) as material factors.

To assist Members I propose to consider each of the locations in turn using the reference system set out on the revised schedule.

1.1 Brading Road, Ryde. This sign would be located opposite one of the exit routes from Tescos car park being located on the southern side of the access road to the Westridge Centre. Site lies outside the development envelope and is subject to Policy D7. Nevertheless, this is not what may be considered to be open countryside and on that basis I see no reason why the proposal at this site should not be supported.

1.2 Esplanade, Ryde. This location is on the northern elevation of the Waterside Pool. The site is inside the development envelope where Policy D6 applies. I see no reason why the proposal at this site should not be supported.

2.2 Newport Road, Cowes. This site lies on the verge outside Northwood Garage on the Nodes Road frontage. The site lies inside the development envelope and is therefore subject to Policy D6. Both the Highway Engineer and CPRE object to this location. From an amenity point of view I do not see a fundamental problem with the intermittent display of signs. Given the Highway Engineer’s concerns with regards to the potential traffic safety dangers I see no alternative other than to resist the display of a sign at this location.

4.1 Fairlee Road, Newport. This location lies on the northern side of the main access road to the Medina Leisure Centre. It is this location where the applicants wish to install the permanent banner frame. The site lies inside the development envelope and is therefore subject to Policy D6. When considered all relevant factors I see no reason why the proposal at this site should not be supported.

4.4 Fairlee Road, Newport. This site lies on the northern side of the traffic light junction at Fairlee Road and the access to Seaclose Park. The site lies inside the development envelope and is subject to Policy D6. Isle of Wight Society and the Highway Engineer object to this sign as it lies within a signal control zone. On that basis, I consider the display of a sign at this location should be resisted.

5.1 Broadway, Sandown. This site lies in front of the eastern elevation of The Heights Leisure Centre. The site lies within the development envelope and is therefore subject to Policy D6. Taking all factors into consideration I believe that the display of a sign at this location can be supported.

5.2 Broadway, Sandown. This site would involve the attachment of a sign to the railings to Battery Gardens which are located on the southern side of the Broadway. Both the Highway Engineer and CPRE object to this location. The Highway Engineer’s concern relates to traffic safety and on that basis I see no alternative other than to resist the display of a sign at this location.

5.3 Culver Parade, Sandown. This location lies on the northern side of Culver Parade in front of Browns Golf Course. The site is inside the development envelope and is therefore subject to Policy D6. There were no objections to this sign and I believe the display of a sign in this location should be supported.

5.4 High Street, Sandown. This application relates to the positioning of the sign across the High Street tied at a suitable height above the highway. Policy D6 applies. There is a zebra crossing immediately to the west of the proposed position and this has attracted an objection from the Highway Engineer. Accordingly, although the site is inside the development envelope I believe I must follow the Highway Engineer’s comments and resist the display of a sign in this location.

5.6 Culver Parade, Sandown. This site would involve the attachment of a sign to the metal railings which face Culver Parade on the north side of the observation platform which is located on the roof above the public toilets on the corner of Culver Parade and Avenue Slipway. The site lies inside the development envelope and Policy D6 applies. The proposal has attracted an objection from the Highway Engineer on the grounds that the sign may prove to be a distraction to traffic at the busy junction of Culver Parade, High Street, Victoria Road and Avenue Road. Given this objection I do not consider that I can support the display of a sign in this location.

6.1 County Ground, Shanklin. This site is the grass verge on the south east side of Green Lane adjacent the entrance and car park area to the County Ground. The site is inside the development envelope and subject to Policy D6. This site has attracted no objections and I see no reason why the display of a sign in this location should not be supported.

8.1 School Green Road, Freshwater. This site is the grass verge on the south side of School Green Road adjacent the footpath link which runs through Stroud Playing Field to Stroud Road. The site is inside the development envelope and so Policy D6 applies. No objections have been received to this sign and I see no reason why the display of a sign in this location should not be supported.

8.2 &

8.3 Colwell Common, Totland Bay. These proposals intend to positions four signs in the north east corner of the green at the junction of Colwell Road and the central roadway splitting the common opposite Ward Close with the other sign positioned in the south east corner of the green with the junction of Colwell Road and Colwell Common Road. Both sites are within the development settlement subject to Policy D6. These sites have attracted an objection from both CPRE and Isle of Wight Society, however I consider that the intermittent display of signs would not undermine the visual character of the locality and accordingly notwithstanding the objection I believe the display of signs at both locations should be supported.

9.1 Sandown Road, Bembridge. This proposal would result in the positioning of a sign on the B3395 in the north east corner of its junction with the roadway leading into Bembridge Airport. This site lies outside the development envelope and accordingly Policy D7 applies. Although I do not consider that the intermittent display of a sign in this location would undermine its amenity value. The Highway Engineer and CPRE have both objected to the display of a sign at this location. The Highway Engineer is concerned that the display on a bend would be a traffic distraction. Given this objection I believe that the display of a sign in this location should be resisted.

10.1 Kite Hill, Wootton. This proposal would result in the display of a sign directly opposite Fishbourne Lane. The site lies outside the development envelope and is therefore subject to Policy D7. Isle of Wight Society objects to this sign. The Highway Engineer also objects to this sign on the grounds that it lies within a traffic control junction and would therefore be a hazard to highway safety. Under these circumstances I do not consider the display of a sign in this location can be supported.

11.3 Rowborough Corner, St. Helens. This proposal would see the display of a sign opposite the B3330 St. Helens road. This location lies outside the development envelope and Policy D7 applies. Proposal has attracted objections from CPRE, Isle of Wight Society and the Highway Engineer with the latter commenting that the sign lies within a signal controlled junction. On that basis I do not consider the display of a sign in this location can be supported.

To summarise, of the 17 proposals I consider that 9 can be supported but 8 should be refused because of concerns relating to highway safety issues.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to approve advertisement consent for some of the signs but to withhold it for others, 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 of the display of the signs on amenity and highway safety issues have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of people, this has to be balanced with the right of the applicant to seek permission and display banners in the proposed sites. Insofar as there is any interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms 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 described in the evaluation section above, the approval of 9 of the sites with the refusal of 8 is consistent with the guidance set out in the Advertisement Regulations 1992 as well as noting as a material factor the policies set out in the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - SPLIT DECISION

(a) Advertisement consent be approved with conditions for the following sites:

1.1 - Brading Road, Ryde

1.2 - Esplanade, Ryde

4.1 - Fairlee Road, Newport

5.1 - Broadway, Sandown

5.3 - Culver Parade, Sandown

6.1 - County Ground, Shanklin

8.1 - School Green Road, Freshwater

8.2 - Colwell Common, Totland Bay - north east corner

8.3 - Colwell Common, Totland Bay - south west corner

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Standard condition - B01
2	Standard condition - B02
3	Standard condition - B03
4	Standard condition - B04
5	Standard condition - B05
6	Permission for Local Authority - A34
7	Before the banner frame is installed a plan showing its precise location taking into account the position of nearby trees shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. the submitted details shall also include a specification outlining how the frame will be installed to avoid damaging any tree roots. The installation shall then take place in accordance with the agreed location and specification. Reason: To ensure that the adjacent trees are not adversely affected by the driveway and in accordance with the policies D1 and C12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(b) That the following sites are refused because of their potential impact on the proposed advertisement, because of its position, size, design and appearance would form a source of distraction to drivers thereby constituting a hazard to road users and would be contrary to the criteria set out in the Advertisement Regulations 1992 and the Policies D6/D7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2.2 - Newport Road, Cowes

4.4 - Fairlee Road, Newport

5.2 - Broadway, Sandown

5.4 - High Street, Sandown

5.6 - Culver Parade, Sandown

9.1 - Sandown Road, Bembridge

10.1 - Kite Hill, Wootton

11.3 - Rowborough Corner, St. Helens

TCP/02700/F P/02228/03 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown South

Registration Date: 19/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Isle of Wight Developments Ltd

Demolition of existing building; construction of 4 storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor

9, Pier Street, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is being reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services given the nature and level of objections.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If determined at the April 20th meeting, this application will have taken 17 weeks to process, the delay being due to increased volume of work and further information submitted by the agent.

LOCATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site has an area of approximately 0.02 hectares and is located on the northern side of Pier Street just before its junction with the Esplanade. The Esplanade and Pier Street are situated on rising land on a curve turning from east, rising to the north towards the High Street. The site is presently almost completely covered by the existing building which is a three storey white painted rendered structure comprising a disused pub or nightclub with flats over. The land also rises behind the building, quite steeply to the rear of properties located off High Street. There is a small area of open, garden land intervening between the site and those properties.

To the east, No. 11 Pier Street is a three storey property, of similar appearance and of similar finish; again shops on ground floor with flats over. Beyond, further to the east is the Trouville Hotel, a modernised four storey hotel building of some considerable length facing the Esplanade, presenting a ground floor, predominantly glazed, elevation with balconies on first and second floors, surmounted by a false Mansard style roof incorporating dormer windows on the Esplanade elevation.

To the west lies a cafe/restaurant on ground floor, but the ground floor at a much higher level since, at this corner, there is an extremely steep gradient as Pier Street rises from the Esplanade to High Street. Slightly further north, attached to this building is a private residence and, beyond, Montpelier Hotel, again at a significantly higher level.

The area is one of mixed uses, but is predominantly tourist orientated with flats, shops, cafes and restaurants, hotels and, with the pier opposite, could be regarded as the centre of Sandown's tourism.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning consent granted for the change of use from amusement centre to cafe in May 1995, referring only to the ground floor of the premises.

Variation of condition on the previous permission to allow preparation of other cooked foods - temporary planning permission in August 1997 for a period of 1 year.

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to food and drink (Class A3) approved as a retrospective consent in October 2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This proposal represents the complete redevelopment of the site following demolition of the existing building. The construction of a four storey building to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor.

Plans show the building to have four floors despite the very steep gradient of Pier Street, ground floor is shown to be on a single level. Flats are shown to comprise two bedrooms, bathroom and living/dining/kitchen, with a staircase situated towards the rear of the building served by a common stairwell accessed via the passage just to the west of the building and from a door in the frontage. The plan forms for first, second and third floors are similar but, on the fourth floor, the top floor, the flat comprises three bedrooms, two of which are en-suite, a bathroom, a living/kitchen/dining room. The first floor flats open out onto a balcony facing the sea.

The building is proposed to be constructed in masonry with an unspecified finish. Essentially the front elevation is of a symmetrical design although the ground floor, which projects forwards beyond the main part of the structure by about 2 metres, is not necessarily symmetrical and, indeed, on plan forms a curved facade and incorporates arched window openings, the shop front being set beneath the main structure. The second and third floors incorporate balcony features projecting 0.9 of a metre from the main structure and fenestration with a horizontal emphasis prevails.

In relation to the adjoining properties, the parapet, behind which sits the Mansard style top floor, is consistent with the height of the Trouville Hotel a few metres east whereas, on the western side, the parapet is slightly below the eaves level of the adjoining property although oversails the adjoining balcony by about 2.7 metres. The east elevation of the building is plain, the western elevation is not especially detailed with the exception of string courses and the rather unusual feature of secondary windows to bedrooms and kitchen inset in a splayed recess approximately midway within the building's depth. The windows are situated in the splay and are secondary windows to rear bedroom 2 and the living/dining/kitchen room in their respective flats.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the designated development envelope and shown within Tourism Policy 4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The site is under no specific allocation and is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a Conservation Area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer's recommend conditions if approved.

TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Sandown Town Council object to the development on grounds of being out of character, loss of privacy, history of land instability in this area, adverse effect in the street scene, loss of vision for motorists and overdevelopment of the site.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters of objection from local and neighbouring property owners on grounds of adverse effect on existing fire escape, history of land instability, excessive height of building representing an overdevelopment of the site, overlooking and loss of privacy, development out of character and overdominant on properties adjoining, loss of outlook and inadequate car parking. One writer suggests that, in the event that planning permission is granted, the fire escape on the western side of the site is retained at all times and that the ground floor of the property is restricted to retail use only.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment, but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

In essence this proposal seeks to demolish the existing building, last used as a takeaway and restaurant and bar on ground floor with flats over, and replacing it with a four/five storey building (rooms within roof space) to form retail on ground floor with four floors of residential above. In terms of the footprint, the site coverage is very much the same as in the proposal. In terms of the use, it is proposed to substitute the residential and commercial use with another, although it is acknowledged that the residential use of this site is proposed to be intensified. Accordingly, in terms of policy and principle and bearing in mind the proposal seeks to retain a commercial ground floor, proposals are considered to be consistent with current UDP policy.

The height, scale and mass of the building is altered only in the proposal to increase the height by 2 floors, one of which is contained within the Mansard style roof. The width of the building and its scale is consistent with the one it replaces and adjoining properties, and although the height has been increased by 2 floors it is similar in height to the Trouville Hotel a few metres to the east and, of course, as the site is on rising land, the building rises with land levels and is also consistent with the adjoining building to the west. It is accepted that, in providing an additional 2 floors, there are 4 more flats, but this is consistent with Governmental advice seeking to maximise the use of urban land and increase densities. The only way to increase density in this instance is to increase height. However, in visual terms, whilst the adjoining property to the east is somewhat dwarfed by the new development, it is already dwarfed by the appearance of the adjoining hotel on its eastern side which means that the adjoining property is the "odd one out".

Objections have been received to the scheme based on excessive height and reasons cited for these objections are based on dominance, loss of privacy, overshadowing and overdevelopment of the site, clearly objections based on perceived impacts on the individual properties adjoining. No one has a right to a view and indeed, presently, some properties enjoy a view over the site to Sandown Bay. Some loss of outlook will be realised, but these properties are essentially the ones behind, to the north, involve distances of between 15 and 25 metres and most are at higher level as the land rises from the Esplanade to the north. Bearing in mind the distances involved and the relative heights, it is unlikely that levels of light will be affected significantly.

In terms of overlooking, the rear elevation of the proposal includes 4 floors including a dormer window in the roof, and these windows serve bedrooms only, with the exception of windows to the stairwell. In an urban area it is generally accepted that there will be some mutual overlooking from upper floor residential windows, a factor which is ultimately inevitable in many instances due to decreased distances between properties, a consequence of increased densities. However, the stairwell windows could be obscured glazed in order to maintain light levels but whilst eliminating a degree of loss of privacy.

The western elevation of the building includes an unusual splayed recess containing windows serving the flats on first, second and third floors, a kitchen window and a bedroom window in each of the flats on each of the floors, but these windows are generally secondary, needed only for obtaining light and ventilation, and in order to maintain privacy could also be obscured glazed.

The first floor flats both have a small balcony on the front elevation. This is at a lower level than the terraces on the adjoining property to the east. The lower terrace is used commercially for the restaurant/bar use but the terrace on the adjoining property on the next level is used purely residentially. This cannot be overlooked by the lower balconies but could be overlooked from a terrace at roof level. The front of the Mansard at roof level is in a position approximately equal to that of the upper terrace adjoining, and the terrace level is about 2 metres higher. This means that some view will be blocked from that terrace but, of course, loss of view cannot be counted as a reason for withholding permission. As the terrace is situated further forward, to effect overlooking users of the terrace would have to stand close to the western edge of the terrace and "look back" in a northerly direction to view it. This could be overcome by setting a barrier to the upper terrace adjoining the westernmost window, perhaps in the form of a glazed screen, which would prevent access to the westernmost extent and, to a certain extent, reduce possible overlooking.

In terms of design, the building comprises features which emphasise the horizontal appearance of the building including string courses, fenestration with horizontal glazing bars, parapets and railings to the terraces, features which are found generally within the area. The inclusion of a flat within the Mansard roof allows for a fourth floor (or fifth level) whilst maintaining the building at its lowest. The inclusion of a Mansard roof is similar to the Trouville Hotel in close proximity and the Montpelier Hotel further up Pier Street. Finishes to the building have not been specified but many other buildings in the vicinity, especially on the north east side of Pier Street, are finished in either white or cream painted masonry or render. The plans submitted suggest a similar finish.

Land stability has been raised as a reason to resist the proposed development and although Building Control have no record or reports of movement or remedial work, third party allegations of structural instability have been made but, of course, these could be specific to the building's failure as opposed to geological fault. However, Building Control consider that a structure of the size envisaged could have a significant effect on the overall stability of land and the buildings in the vicinity and suggest that a full Method Statement should be submitted and agreed, both for the demolition works and for the requirements for retaining existing surrounding land and property, before, during and after construction works. Such a statement would need to include results of a stability survey and the provision of designed foundations and retaining structures before any work commenced on the site.

The site is proposed to be developed with no parking provision. The site is located within Zone 2 where 0-50% of normal requirement could be provided, in this instance zero parking is felt appropriate.

In summary, the replacement of an existing residential and commercial building with a more intensive one is felt to be an appropriate development, and with conditions it is felt that the objections are substantially mitigated sufficient to grant planning permission.

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

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the replacement of this commercial and residential development with one more intensive is felt appropriate provided that the tourism/retail use is maintained on ground floor. The design, scale and mass of the building are consistent with existing development in the near vicinity and the development is consistent with Policies D1, D2, T4 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The windows in the west elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained 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	The stairwell windows in the north elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained 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.
6	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
7	Screening to a height of 1.8 metres above terrace level shall be installed and maintained at the western end of the 4th floor terrace in a position commensurate with the westernmost part of the window to bedroom 1 as shown on the approved plan, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the building. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the building is occupied and the screen shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The ground floor of the premises shall be used only as shown on the approved plan for access to the flats hereby approved and as a shop falling within Use Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: In order to ensure that the use of the premises accords with the terms of the application and to prevent any alternative use being made of the premises which could be a source of nuisance or disturbance to occupants of neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to any construction work commencing on site a full Method Statement for both the demolition works and requirements for retaining existing surrounding land and buildings, before, during and after construction works, and details of the foundation design including full calculations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that any demolition, excavation and construction works would not adversely affect adjoining sites and that the development is capable of withstanding continuing land movement in the area, and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The passage situated on the western side of the site shall be maintained as a clear route at all times during and after construction work to enable adequate fire escape. Reason: In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	The dwellings 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 7 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.

TCP/07599/H P/00708/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East

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

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

Applicant: Kingcross Ltd

Erection of 14 flats in a 3 storey block and parking (revised plans) (re-advertised application)

former depot/garage site, Pound Lane, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member Mrs B Lawson at the time of submission.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the 20 April 2004 meeting will have taken 32 weeks to process, the delay due to negotiations in respect of the design of the scheme.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site has an area of 0.12 hectares located on the north side of Pound Lane, approximately 700 metres from its junction with Market Street and opposite the Medical Centre close to the sharp corner before Pound Lane returns to meet Albert Street. The site is currently occupied by a masonry, asbestos sheet and stone depot which has double doors to a height of approximately 4 metres onto Pound Lane. To the east of the site is a public car park, a relatively open area and, beyond, the former Hole in the Wall Public House, the site the subject of a recent planning permission for 11 flats. To the north the rear of properties in mixed use fronting High Street, properties which from the sites’ position are 4/5 storeys in height due to falls in ground level. To the west is further car parking area and service area to the Somerfield retail store located in High Street. To the south east in a large, 3 storey terrace known as Saunders House, Hamborough House, Victoria House and Albert House. Immediately the western end of the site is the Medical Centre which has a frontage also onto Albert Street.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline Planning permission was granted for 12 flats in February 1988, Outline permission for 32 flats in December 1988 and reserved matters were approved in July 1992. These were sheltered flats and of limited accommodation.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

A revised scheme now seeks consent for the residential redevelopment of the site with a continuous terraced building arranged in 4 blocks and comprising 14 two bedroom flats it is proposed to site the block essentially parallel to Pound Lane at a distance of approximately 2.4 metres back from the highway with the overall dimensions of the building being approximately 44 metres in length with a depth of approximately 8 metres. Towards the western end there is a vehicular access serving a small parking area at the rear for 6 vehicles.

The eastern most block is T shaped with further flats extending into the deepest part of the site. The eastern most extent containing preserved trees is retained as an amenity area. Flats range between 66.5 and 71.1 square metres. The flats are shown as 3 storeys in height with 4 distinct elements, each roofed with hipped roofs with gable and hipped projecting features containing bay windows and is proposed to be constructed in essentially brickwork with several rendered panels of considerable size. Architectural features match those of the other two recent schemes on the Clarendon Press building and the Hole in the Wall site including facing brickwork, reconstituted stone parapets and sills, feature brickwork to window heads and plain tiled roofs. Fenestration is of similar proportions to those of the other two developments mentioned.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown to be within the designated development envelope and within the designated Conservation Area and is shown as a schedules housing site. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) applies. Policies B6 and B7 apply.

The site is outside the retail only designation.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers comments not received at the time of writing.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment but Contaminated Land Officer recommends conditions regarding contamination clearance if planning permission is granted.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENT

Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning permission should be withheld.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Ventnor Medical Centre object on grounds that the development is too close to the Medical Centre and development would generate noise, dust and fumes during construction process and cause difficulties with gaining access to their site.

One letter of objection from a local resident who considers that the development does not form part of a comprehensive development of this central area and that it would be premature and perhaps prevent further comprehensive development occurring.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

This is the third application relative to this central area which has been before Members in recent months i.e. the development of the Clarendon Press site and the redevelopment of the Hole in the Wall site. This development, again of 3 storeys in height has been designed with both of the other two in mind, employing a similar style and form to those previously approved and continuing the intimate nature of development in this area through shallow depths of frontage and comparatively small scale development despite the fact that flats are now proposed.

In terms of density, as the depot site is larger than both of the other two sites and the number of flats is roughly the same, the density is lower. However, there is space around the buildings and between the blocks and development fronting High Street and this is quite important to retain in terms of the amenity of those properties and of the new development. The distances between the buildings and the properties in High Street are similar to those of the Hole in the Wall site but, of course, the Hole in the Wall site had no space around it and, indeed, the development at the Clarendon Press building was very nearly whole site coverage. Due to the shape of the site and other constraints on development namely access, rights of way and existence of a Tree Preservation Order on the trees at the north side, it is difficult to see how additional units could be accommodated on this site without further increasing the height of the building.

As with the other two developments, determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, traffic related issues, the density and form the proposed development takes, the effect of the development in terms of design and visual impact on the Conservation Area and any affects on adjoining properties.

This site is one which is scheduled for development and therefore, in terms of policy and principle, there is no objection. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses including much residential, but residential development is also to be encouraged in town centres to help revitalise them. In terms of the density and form, the application seeks consent for a lesser density than those approved on the Clarendon Press and Hole in the Wall sites recently. All of these developments incorporate 3 storey elements and in terms of the present proposals’ form, the proposal is similar to those recently approved. In this location, despite the fact that some development in the vicinity is only 2 storeys in height, 3 storeys in this location is again necessary in order to achieve the higher densities whilst also blending with existing form.

Following the previous permission on the Hole in the Wall site this proposal incorporates an access beneath the first and second floors, leading to a parking area for 6 vehicles. Ideally one car parking space per unit would be preferred but, again, the site is located within zone 3 of the established parking policy which indicates that 0 – 75% of normal provision would be appropriate. Six spaces for 14 flats computes at 57% but as the flats are two bedroom, this equates to 28% and therefore within the 0 – 75% required by zone 3. Bearing in mind the sites’ location, so close to the town centre I do not consider the low level of parking to be an reason to resist.

When the application and the other two applications mentioned above were submitted, additional details supplied with them indicates that the capacity in respect of drainage has been carried out and, subject to certain safeguards, the sites’ can be adequately drained.

Similarly 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 the piling or the compaction of the ground by densifying the upper layers to some considerable depth.

The revised design is the combination of negotiations over a considerable period and scheme which has now been achieved not only reflects the character and form of the approved scheme with the fore running schemes on the other two sites but also reflects the character of this part of the Conservation Area. Again, as with the previous sites, the choice of materials will be crucial and so as long as good quality materials are used including the use of timber sash windows, I consider the result will be complimentary to this part of the Conservation Area.

Turning to the effect on adjoining properties, the site is quite low lying and backs on the rears of properties fronting High Street, properties which mostly have lower levels in commercial use, the upper floor being mostly residentially used. The rear elevation of the proposed building contains windows serving a full range of uses including living/dining room, bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and hallways and therefore the potential is there for mutual overlooking. However, the distances involved are substantial between 14 and 26 metres and therefore I do not consider that unacceptable conflict would result.

Objections to the scheme have been raised on various issues including the fact that a comprehensive approach has not been taken. However, the three applications were submitted together and form a very substantial part of the regeneration of this area. The difficulties in obtaining a concord between all parties to achieve a total and comprehensive redevelopment of this central area are probably insurmountable but I do not consider that the three applications, particularly this application on the depot site should be resisted on that basis.

Objections received from the Medical Centre opposite have been noted, objections which essentially relate to noise, dust and disturbance and potential obstruction during construction works. Clearly these are objections which although understood cannot form the basis to refuse or delay permission for redevelopment as no development would ensue. They are also a matter for resolution by other means.

In summary, the proposed redevelopment, as revised is found acceptable and positively enhances the Conservation Area especially as it continues the style and theme set by the other two approvals on the other sites. Whilst it is accepted that there is a short fall in what would be considered as the ideal in car parking, in this central area, policy suggests that even zero parking would be appropriate as it lies within zone 3. As with the Clarendon Press site and the Hole in the Wall site, this third site forms part of the continuing process of redevelopment and regeneration of this central area, which will assist in raising the standards of the built environment in this location.

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 balanced with the right 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 as the site is a designated housing site and is also consistent with National Planning Guidance regarding housing and matters relating to conservation and the historic environment. It is felt that the redevelopment of the site proposed would form the next step in the comprehensive redevelopment of this central area which will, in the long run, 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	Submission of samples - S03
3	The area between the building and the back of the footway/kerb 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 Isle of Wight 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	Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of 6 vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The windows and doors, fascias and barge boards 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.
7	Rate of discharge of surface water - U01
8	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	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 desktop study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in connection with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report numbers 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 to identify as appropriate by the desktop 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. Theverification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of the 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 the confirmation of 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.
10	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of use of the building hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
12	A pedestrian path link, in accordance with specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be installed and retained and maintained between Pound Lane and High Street before the development hereby approved is completed. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/07676/F P/02171/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 05/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Messrs Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park Ltd

Renewal: 2 bungalows with vehicular access

land between Chameleon and Whitecliff Lodge, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO35

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application was deferred by Members on 10 February 2004 to obtain further information regarding the alleged flooding of the site.

Local Member Councillor Kendall has requested the application come before the Development Control Committee as opposed to the delegated procedure as the site falls outside of the development envelope for Bembridge as defined within the Unitary Development Plan, approval would lead to the consolidation of scattered and dispersed development that would be contrary to Policies G2 and H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at meeting application will have taken 23 weeks – this is due to the need for the Committee consideration and requested deferral by Committee.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site lies about 1 mile west of Bembridge village, on the northern side of Hillway Road and forms part of a small field in front of camping area at Whitecliff Bay. To the front of site there is a telephone box, letter box and bus stop.

Site is flat and flanked either side by bungalows and has natural growth forming the front boundary. The area is made up of a mix of residential properties and Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/7676/A – 1987 Planning Permission was refused for two dwellings on the grounds of non-allocation, development contrary to development plan and intensification of residential development. Subsequent appeal allowed in February 1988. Inspector in his report stated that the site “fulfils the criteria of infill development. Since there are small gaps and are flanked either side by residential development.”

TCP/7676/B – April 1989 the Approval of Reserved Matters was granted and subsequently renewed in 1993 – TCP/7676/C. The last Approval of Reserved Matters expired in 1998.

TCP/7676/E – Full application was approved in January 1999 for two bungalows with vehicular access subject to conditions. Consent was granted on the basis that the circumstances or policies had not changed, application was determined at the Development Control Committee.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the renewal of a full application for two bungalows with vehicular access. Dwellings are detailed on plan to be of faced brickwork construction under a tile roof. Accommodation comprises of three bedrooms in each unit, living room, kitchen and bathroom.

The style of the bungalows is of a simple design and are sited further north into the site in relation to the existing dwelling to the east.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 – Housing.

PPG7 - Countryside.

Policy G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes).

Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements).

Policy D1 (Standards of Design).

Policy H5 (Infill Developments).

Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries).

The site is located outside of the designated Bembridge development envelope.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has recommended conditions should the application be approved.

Environment Agency have commented and they confirm that the site does not lie within any flood risk area as identified on the Agency’s flood plain maps. They continue, that any property in the vicinity of a water course could be at risk to flooding in certain conditions. The Agency does not have any records of flooding with respect to this particular proposal although not all such events are reported to the Agency. Information from the Environment Agency refers only to flooding from rivers or the sea and that properties may also be at risk from other elements of the drainage system such as surface water, highway drainage and the sewerage system. The Environment Agency is not in a position to comment on the risk from these other systems.

The Council’s Drainage Engineer has confirmed that the ditch in question has surcharged in exceptional conditions. This has been due to the culvert in Steyne Woods becoming blocked or being inadequate and when the ditch became overgrown. It has been suggested that a higher damp course level is implemented in relation to surrounding properties.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council have recommended approval of application, it was hoped that an improved design would have been submitted.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Members objects to application as site is outside development envelope, leading to the consolidation of scattered and dispersed development. Site does not constitute a gap in an otherwise built up frontage. The site has not been developed in the past as it is on the course of natural land drainage for the immediate area and is subject to flooding.

Local Member continues that the criteria of PPG3 advises authorities to fully review all applications to renew permissions where they no longer comply with current policies.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether the circumstances have changed since the previous application was approved. The application was determined in 1999 at the Development Control Committee in accordance with the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan. The Unitary Development Plan has since been adopted and the criteria of the policies has not changed.

PPG3 states that “some existing planning permissions no longer meet the requirements current policy guidance and should not be renewed.”

Policy C1 seeks to protect the landscape character of the countryside, whilst Policy G1 seeks to locate new development within defined settlements, Policy G5 allows for development outside defined settlements exceptionally where it requires a rural location. Policy G2 seeks to prevent the consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements in the countryside where undesirable urbanisation would result. Residential development in the countryside would not be possible if one of the criterion in H9 is not satisfied notably that it would result in the unacceptable infilling in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses,

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (The Countryside) states that the sensitive infilling of small gaps within small groups of houses/minor extensions to groups may be acceptable though much would depend on the character of the surroundings and the number of such groups in the area. Hillway Road is primarily residential in character, and there are gaps within the frontage, given the nature of the area and the residential use I do not consider that approval would harm the rural character of the locality.

On the basis of the Inspectors decision and his comments made in 1988 appeal and subsequent decision and in particular the previous planning consent in 1999 and the information within PPG7 I am of the opinion that there have been no material changes either in policy or site circumstances that would justify a refusal at this time.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the circumstances have not changed since the previous approval to warrant a different decision when considered in light of the relevant policies.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Submission of samples - S03
4	Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above the 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) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	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: (a) 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.
6	Access pairing - J34
7	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of two parking spaces including garages has been provided for each of the proposed dwellings. Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision and comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until separate turning spaces are provided for each of the proposed dwellings 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 with the Local Planning Authority. This space shall be 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.
9	The existing hedgerow frontage shall be retained and where necessary augmented with appropriate species to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority at a height not exceeding 1 metre. The hedging shall be maintained at that height. 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.
10	Prior to work commencing details of the finished floor levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with those agree details. Reason: In the interests of the future occupants of the dwellings regarding flood issues.

TCP/09052/C P/02530/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 17/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mrs J Stuart

Outline for terrace of 3 houses with parking; alterations to & construction of new vehicular access, (revised scheme)

land adjacent 51, Albert Road, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Mundy, who opposes this application on grounds of inadequate parking, congestion and overdevelopment.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 18 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because of officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a rectangular shaped site measuring 25 metres by 19 metres, being situated on the inside of a right-angled bend at the western end of Albert Road. Site currently serves as a side garden to No. 51, comprising of a relatively level area of lawn and borders.

This is a mixed residential area, containing a mixture of dwelling types, mostly two storey but including terraced, detached and semi-detached. Most dwellings in the immediate locality have a building line close to the back edge of the pavement.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/9052A/C/7855 - Two houses. Consent refused 4 May 1972.

TCP/9052B/P/2172/02 - Outline for a detached house and garage and a pair of semi-detached houses; vehicular access. Consent refused 14 January 2003 on grounds that proposal would represent over-development of the site, leading to a cramped appearance in the street scene which would be detrimental to the visual amenities and spatial character of the area, and the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks outline consent, with all matters reserved for subsequent consideration, for a terrace of 3 dwellings. Illustrative plans show a terrace fronting north side of Albert Road, immediately east of right-angle bend. Dwellings are shown to have two bedrooms and bathroom upstairs, living room, kitchen and wc downstairs. Terrace is shown to be stepped back from corner of site to align with 45 Albert Road to east and with private garden areas to rear. Western plot would have vehicular access from narrow part of Albert Road adjacent the access to existing bungalow at No. 51. The other proposed dwellings would have parking fronting onto Albert Road adjacent No. 45.

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 would choose to live.

The site is situated within the development envelope and Parking Zone 3 as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

G1 - Development envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

H5 - Infill Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council object on grounds that the proposal still amounts to over-development of the site but comment that two may be more acceptable. Also concerned that existing sewerage problems would be exacerbated.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Member objects on grounds that Albert Road is extremely congested and that further on-street parking may create difficulties for emergency vehicle access. Also concerned that proposal constitutes over-development.

Three letters received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Excessive density.

Traffic congestion/generation.

Previous application rejected as sewerage system is inadequate and overloads Gurnard Luck.

Ground is known for instability problems and insurance companies will not insure lower part of Albert Road for subsidence reasons.

Will affect light and privacy.

Loss of view and property value.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Cowes and therefore, in general terms, is considered acceptable for residential development. The main consideration is whether the site can accommodate 3 dwellings without appearing cramped in the street scene or detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers.

Immediately to the east of the application site is a terrace of 8 dwellings with frontage onto Albert Road of some 30 metres. Although the depth of application site is substantially less than the neighbouring terrace, its frontage of 22 metres does compare favourably and would, in my opinion, allow for three dwellings to be developed as shown without appearing cramped in the street scene, whilst also retaining sufficient space about buildings. Whilst recognising that plot depth is almost half that of the adjoining terrace, illustrative plans do show that each property would have a rear garden measuring no less than 7 metres in length. This is considered acceptable and, together with adequate road frontage, would overcome the previous reason for refusing consent.

Adjoining property to the east does have windows overlooking the application site. The illustrative layout plan indicates that the proposed terrace would be some 6 metres away from this dwelling. This is considered to be an adequate gap in terms of potential light and dominance issues, with window arrangement to be considered at reserve matters stage. I therefore consider that any adverse effect on the adjacent property would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of this application.

The highway issues raised are recognised, but the access arrangements are similar to those previously put forward, to which the Highway Engineer did not object, and the new footpath shown on the illustrative plan would improve the current situation. One space per dwelling as proposed is considered compliant with policy TR16. Previous application was not refused on inadequacy of sewerage as claimed by one objector. Building Control will need to be satisfied that development can be adequately served by a drainage system. Southern Water will also have to be consulted should the developer wish to connect to the public system. I therefore see no reason why this latest application should be refused on drainage grounds.

Ground stability not identified as an issue in previous refusal. Site is not identified in Cowes to Gurnard Ground Stability Study as an area of potential movement and there is no evidence of subsidence affecting existing properties.

In terms of concern relating to loss of view and property value, this should not carry any weight in the determination of this application.

To conclude, it is considered that the previous reason relating to over-development has been satisfactorily overcome, as it is considered that the proposed development would not appear cramped or intrusive owing to sufficient space being retained between buildings. It is therefore my opinion that three houses on this plot would not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring properties or the surrounding area in general. I am therefore satisfied that this latest proposal is acceptable and complies with Development Plan policy, specifically D1, D2, H5, TR7 and TR16.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in this report, I am of the opinion that the scheme under consideration has satisfactorily overcome the previous reasons for refusing consent and that the principle of a terrace of three dwellings on this site could be accepted.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of reserved matters - A03

TCP/10169/F P/01680/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 27/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr R H Chapman

Demolition of garage block; terrace of 4 houses

land rear of 33 and 35 Albany Road and fronting, Catherine Terrace, Newport, PO30

Members will recall considering this application at DCC held on 10 February 2004. It was resolved to defer this item pending negotiations in respect of density, parking and the incorporation of a pavement, as Members felt that the development of four houses would constitute over-development and that the absence of "on site" parking facilities may exacerbate present "on street" parking and potentially increase the level of traffic hazard for pedestrians using Catherine Terrace. The developer has been approached in this respect, but has requested that the application be determined in its original form.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Councillor Price, shortly after application was publicised. He is concerned with the foul and surface water drainage implications of this development. He does not wish the proposed development to proceed until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water, including capacity calculations, has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application , the processing of which has taken twenty four weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications because of outstanding consultations and workload of Case Officer and deferment of application.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is located on the corner of Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane, approximately 20 metres north east of its junction with Albany Road. It currently comprises of a concrete apron accessed off Catherine Terrace with a block of seven garages immediately behind. Site is roughly rectangular in shape measuring 21 metres wide and 13 metres deep. The immediate area is characterised by tight-knit residential development comprising mainly of terraces and semi-detached houses.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10169E - Outline for bungalow and garage refused January 1990 on grounds that the proposal would result in over development, an undesirable arrangement of dwellings, have insufficient amenity space as well as leading to the loss of off-street parking facilities.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to demolish the garage block and to construct a terrace of four two bedroom houses. Three of the four houses would be set back approximately 1 metre from edge of road in Catherine Terrace, while the fourth dwelling to be situated on the corner with Banner Lane would be set back by almost 2 metres. Each dwelling would have a limited rear garden measuring approximately 3.5 metres in length. Site slopes away towards the north eastern (side) boundary and eaves/ridge level is shown as being stepped to reflect this gradient.

Elevations show that the development would be well articulated with materials comprising red bricks with buff brick features under a grey tiled roof.

Applicant has submitted the following since the application was deferred by Members:

"The Committee mentioned low cost housing and the greed of landowners wanting to cram as many homes on the site to gain more profit. These units are built to increase my portfolio of rental properties, not for resale. They are being built by Redstone Properties Limited, because my son is a Director of this company and will allow me to build the houses at an affordable cost and therefore allow me to rent them.

1. The plans for properties allow for all four homes to have a front wall and gate to stop people walking straight onto the road.

2. As for the points raised on parking and having a pavement. We had an on-site meeting with the Local Highways Inspector, Mr Keith Jolliffe, in which he stated "that it is not practical to reduce the development down to three units, because it would not have the appropriate turning areas required for off-street parking and they would not allow any vehicles onto the road from the site".

As for the pavement issue, in his opinion it would be dangerous to have a partial pavement with the development in this road because it would make people have to step off the pavement blind from rear of the existing properties.

I hope this will now allow this application to proceed without any further problems."

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 development in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people will choose to live. Furthermore, it states that car parking standards for housing have become increasingly demanding and have been applied too rigidly, often as minimum standards. Developers should not be required to provide more car parking than they or potential occupiers might want, nor to provide off-street parking when there is no need, particularly in urban areas where public transport is available or where there is a demand for car free housing. Parking policies should be framed with good design in mind, recognising that car ownership varies with income, age, household type, and the type of housing and its chosen location.

Site is situated within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary 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.

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

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

H5 - Infill Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

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 2 of the UDP where parking provision 0 - 50% of the non operational requirement applies.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval. However, it is noted that the loss of the garages and associated parking spaces could create a parking problem in an area where there is no parking provision. The Highway Engineer is aware of a number of applications within this area, and although minor when taken individually, are perhaps unacceptable when considered on a more holistic basis.

Highway Engineer has submitted the following since the application was deferred by Members:

"My view is still the same as before, this is a development that is compliant with the UDP parking requirements. It is not acceptable from a highways perspective to reduce the number of houses and provide parking. I could not support nose-in parking for three houses in this location, the road has restricted width and reduced sight line into Banner Lane and Catherine Terrace. A footway across the front of the properties would end facing a wall so that pedestrians would be stepping out blind into the carriageway and not able to see oncoming vehicles, and vice versa. Any isolated footway may also attract half-on, half-off parking, this would be another hazard."

Southern Water confirm that the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require their formal approval. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of this site. It would be preferred if no surface water were discharged to the public foul/combined sewer as this could increase the risk of flooding to downstream properties. There are no sewer incidents recorded on the public sewer in the vicinity of this site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of 13 individual letters and a 50 signature petition raising objections which can be summarised as follows:

· Loss of much valued garages coupled with the parking needs of the proposed dwellings would exacerbate on-street parking problems where there is already a shortage.

· The road would be narrowed to a point where it would be dangerous for pedestrians, particularly children from the nearby primary school, as there is no pavement.

· Creation of a blind spot on the corner of Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane.

· Circumstances have not changed since 1990 other than perhaps an increase in vehicle ownership.

· Infrastructure is unable to cope with the demands of the proposed development.

· Unsympathetic design.

· Loss of privacy.

· General disturbance associated with high density residential development.

· Loss of light and overshadowing.

· Overdevelopment.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Newport and, for the purposes of PPG3, is considered to be a brownfield site. I therefore consider the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes to be acceptable in principle. This is a full application and has generated a considerable amount of local opposition and raises a number of issues. Main issues to be considered relate to density, impact on neighbouring properties and character of the area, parking and drainage.

In terms of density, this is a brownfield site situated in a dense and tight-knit residential area within easy walking distance of bus routes and Newport town centre. The proposal before Members does offer a high density but, in my opinion, not excessively so when considering the character of the surrounding area. This is seen as an opportunity of making efficient use of this brownfield site while also providing the type of accommodation to meet a demand identified in the Housing Needs Survey. The proposed layout is relatively simple but very much accords with the prevailing pattern of development where terraces of houses with limited front gardens face onto the highway.

Members will note that consent was refused on this very same site for a single dwelling in 1990 on grounds of overdevelopment. Objectors take the view that circumstances have not changed since that time to justify approving an application for four houses. However, there has been a significant change in Government policy as far as density is concerned with PPG3 encouraging more efficient use of land and hence greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres or nodes along good quality public transport corridors. This is also echoed in Policy H6 of the UDP. I am therefore firmly of the opinion that there has been a significant shift in policy to justify accepting the principle of four dwellings on this site.

The proposed development is shown to be well articulated taking account of the fall of the site while also creating interesting elevational treatment. It has also been partially staggered to help turn the corner with Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane. Each dwelling would have a small front garden offering a natural transition between the highway and the front wall of the proposed development. Whilst not necessarily replicating established houses in the area, I am of the view that the proposed development would sit comfortably on this site and not compromise the visual amenities of the area.

The proposed houses are shown to have small rear gardens with first floor rear facing windows that may have the potential of looking into neighbouring gardens. However, this is a tight-knit residential area where a certain degree of overlooking already takes place. Bearing this factor in mind together with the fact that the windows in question would serve bedrooms and bathrooms, I am of the opinion that the privacy of neighbouring properties would not be significantly compromised by this development. Similarly, having regard to the established pattern of development, change in ground levels and the position of the proposed houses relative to the path of the sun, I am of the view that loss of light to adjoining properties would not be significant.

Local residents have expressed their deepest concerns in respect of highway safety, the loss of seven garages that are all occupied for parking and the fact that the proposed development would not be provided with off-street parking. It is claimed that approval of this application could entail many additional vehicles attempting to park on nearby streets where parking is already congested. The Highway Engineer has recommended approval and is therefore satisfied that the proposal would not compromise highway safety. He does, however, express concern over the loss of off-street parking but does not necessarily regard this as a justifiable reason for refusal when considering both national and local policies in respect of parking provision. The site is within zone 2 of the parking guidelines and is situated in close proximity to bus routes and Newport town centre. I am therefore of the view that approval of this development with no parking provision would accord with the objective of securing sustainable residential environments, and in particular national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car. I sympathise with those residents who currently use the garages to be demolished, but feel that a reason for refusal based on loss of parking could not be substantiated given current policy and the fact that refusing this application would not guarantee availability of these garages for residents in the long term.

The applicant was invited to reconsider the proposed density (maximum of three units) and to incorporate limited parking and a footpath. Subsequent discussions with the Highway Engineer revealed that three dwellings and parking is not acceptable as there would not be sufficient space for vehicles to manoeuvre safely into and out of the site. Furthermore, a footpath in this location would not, according to the Highway Engineer, enhance pedestrian safety, but could in fact detract from it.

Members are therefore requested to determine the application as submitted. As with all applications, this case must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policies considered relevant in this particular case can be specifically related to the objectives which underpin the UDP. Firstly, "to encourage sustainable housing development in terms of both location and design". The location of the site in proximity to the town centre and public transport routes has already been discussed above, so has the suitable design of the proposed development. Secondly, "to try and reduce the need to travel, especially by car". A no parking option in this urban location is thought to be consistent with national and local policies that encourage more sustainable patterns of development to help reduce reliance on the private car. I am therefore firmly of the opinion that the proposed development does accord with Development Plan policies and that there are no other material considerations to outweigh this conclusion.

In terms of drainage, the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. Southern Water confirm that there are no reported incidents on the line of the public sewer in the vicinity of the application site, therefore suggesting that capacity does exist for additional foul sewage. However, I would suggest a condition requiring submission of a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, to ensure that a satisfactory point of connection to the system can be made. I would also suggest that the condition encompasses surface water disposal, although it should be noted that water run off may actually reduce as a result of this development as part of this site, mainly the enclosed rear gardens, would become permeable. Bearing in mind the requirements of the suggested condition, I see no reason to further delay the determination of this application on grounds of drainage.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 proposal makes efficient use of this brownfield site and accords with national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car without impacting significantly on neighbouring properties or the character of the area in general. I am satisfied concerns relating to drainage can be adequately dealt with through a condition. I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained in the 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	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	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water disposal. Any such agreed foul 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. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	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, Classes A, B, C, D and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the cartilage 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.
6	All material excavated as a result of general groundworks including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site within an agreed timetable. Reason: In the interests of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Surface water drainage from the development hereby approved shall be disposed of to the existing highway storm water drainage system, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall not be disposed of to soakaways or by any other method without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/11199/E P/00093/04 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 14/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Mr B Ginders

Siting of portable building for use as a training room

former telephone exchange, off, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38 3HH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Councillor Mr Yates, has requested the application come before the Development Control Committee for decision due to public interest, related highway issues and the history of the site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If the application is determined at the Development Control Committee application will have taken 14 weeks in which to determine, this is due to the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to disused telephone exchange located on north side of School road, Godshill, a few metres east of its junction with School Crescent accessed from a service road to four residential properties plus new telephone exchange.

The building on site is fairly small with overall dimensions of 10 metres by 4 metres, brick built under gabled tiled roof, and currently operates as Acorn Care Service, providing care for the elderly in the community.

The immediate area is primarily residential in character, and site is adjacent to Conservation Area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11199/C – Change of use from telephone exchange to nursery school was granted subject to conditions in 1996.

TCP/11199/D – Change of use from nursery school to office subject to condition restricting the use in 2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent for siting of porta kabin to rear of existing building to be used for training purposes in connection with Acorn Care Services.

The training centre is required in order to provide training for the staff so they can provide care for their client’s in their homes.

The current building is not of a sufficient size to accommodate this form of training, and this is a vital part to the operation of Acorn Care Services, and it's future as a care providing business. Proposal is 9.14 m x 3.04 m with an overall height of 2.74 m.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope adjacent to Conservation Area that runs along the opposite side of School Road.

PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms.

Strategic Policy S5 – Proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island.

Unitary Development Plan Policies G1 – Development Envelopes Towns and Villages, G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development, D1 – Standards of Design and U1 – The Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Education Services.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environment Agency has no objections.

Highway Engineer recommends approval, and has stated that,

"visits to the site generated by this development would not have significant impact on the surrounding highway network. In my opinion the proposal would result in a longer stay for existing trips and not an increase in trips to this site...It is accepted that concern has been raised by residents over vehicles parking in the spur road between School Crescent and School Road. However the spur road is a public highway with no parking restriction."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council does not raise any objection to the siting providing that it is for a limited period.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection have been received from nearby residents. Points of objection relate to vehicles parking in service road outside of premises obstructing the route for emergency vehicles and accesses to property.

CPRE object on the grounds that there are no details of the proposed building and that the structure would be of a basic and industrial appearance contrary to Policy D1.

Council’s Conservation Assistant has noted that there is little information accompanying the application that it is unlikely that the proposal would adversely affect the setting of Godshill Conservation Area.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle, highway implications and the overall affect of the proposal on the character of the area.

This site is within the development envelope and therefore is acceptable in principle.

Paragraph 13 of PPG4 reads as follows:

“The Planning system should operate on the basis that applications for development should be allowed having regard to the development plan and all material considerations unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.”

Whilst it is appreciated that the portakabin will not be of a high standard of design given the limitations that the applicant has in terms of his lease, a temporary building is considered the most practical. When considering the proposed siting of the portakabin I am of the opinion that the existing building on site will afford a suitable screen in order to protect the visual amenities of the locality and the adjacent conservation area.

In terms of highway implications car parking space exists within the overall site that serves the BT telephone exchange and Acorn Care Services. This is sufficient to accommodate the 5 members of staff in the office. The other members of staff, 46 in total, work within the community and only visit the office for training which is updated every 3 months for 2 hours and this will take place in the proposed portakabin. Given, that the site is on a bus route and in close proximity to public car parks I am of the opinion that approval of the proposal will not adversely affect highway safety or the current parking situation. Applicant has also provided me with documentation that he has sent to his staff asking them to use the car parks in the immediate area.

Paragraph 27 of PPG4 states:

“Planning permission should be refused if that is the proper course in light of the development plan and other material considerations, consideration should always be given, however to whether specific problems associated with development appraisal might reasonably be overcome by granting planning permission subject to conditions. “

I am of the opinion that a temporary consent subject to the portakabin being painted in a dark brown or dark green colour and purely used for ancillary purposes to Acorn Care Services is acceptable given the employment benefits of the existing business in light of Policy U1. A temporary consent will also allow the Local Planning Authority the opportunity to further review the operation of this facility once it has been established.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the issue of a temporary consent would be the most appropriate route in order for the impact of the training centre to be fully assessed. Regarding the short term impact I am satisfied that approval represents an acceptable form of development that will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 April 2006, on or before which date the building shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The building is of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The external surfaces of the proposed portable building shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a dark brown/dark green colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The portable building hereby approved shall be used solely for training purposes in connection with Acorn Care Services and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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.

TCP/15752/W P/00054/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland

Registration Date: 08/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Island View Holidays

Demolition of two chalets; replacement pair of semi-detached holiday bungalows

Island View Chalets, Fort Warden Road, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390DA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application which raises issues having implications on a wider scale in terms of tourism development on the Island.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 16 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to the complexity of the issue involved and need to examine carefully the current proposal.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to holiday chalet site located on northern side of Fort Warden Road approximately 120 metres to west of its junction with Colwell Common Road. Site is bounded on northern side by properties fronting Colwell Chine Road and to the east by properties fronting Colwell Common Road. Western boundary of site is defined by line of poplar trees beyond which is the Beachside Bungalows site (self-contained holiday units).

Existing holiday chalets within application site, constructed for most part of faced concrete blocks under flat roofs, are arranged on terraces as site rises in westerly direction with maximum change in level of approximately 8 metres between eastern boundary and western boundary. Site contains a substantial number of trees, including those on boundaries and individual specimen trees interspersed amongst the chalets. Area to north and east of site is predominantly residential in character, whilst to the west is further holiday accommodation and to south is an area of open unimproved grassland.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/15752/R - P/553/97 - Outline planning permission for residential development of 26 dwellings refused June 1997. Reasons for refusal related to location of site, outside development envelope, contrary to policies of the Structure Plan, West Wight District Plan and the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. In addition, application was refused on grounds that access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width and construction, and that the application was accompanied by insufficient information regarding the impact on trees. Subsequent appeal was dismissed in May 1998.

TCP/15752/V - P/1198/02 - Planning permission for demolition of holiday chalets, outline for residential development on 39 dwellings and alterations to vehicular access refused March 2003. Reasons for refusal related to location of site outside development envelope, contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan. In addition application was refused on grounds of loss of tourism facilities, that access was unsatisfactory to accommodate increase in vehicular traffic with inadequate width and construction, and application did not have justification to establish why proposals should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for demolition of 2 chalets and replacement pair of semi-detached holiday bungalows. It is understood that application has been submitted to establish the principle of this proposal before re-developing the whole site. This application will form part of an overall development proposal of 48 number chalets together with a warden's bungalow, outdoor swimming pool and tennis court, all of which are shown in detail in the supporting site development plan. Proposed chalets will be single storey under a shallow pitch roof measuring approximately 550 square feet. Each will include two bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and lounge.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside the development boundary and designated as a permanent holiday accommodation site. Area to south of site beyond Fort Warden Road is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

G4 - General locational criteria for development

G5 - Development outside defined settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for development within the site

T1 - The promotion of tourism and the extension of the season

T3 - Criteria for the development of holiday accommodation

T6 - Permanent accommodation sites

C1 - Protection of landscape character

TR7 - Highways considerations for new development

Planning Policy Guidance Notes 21 - Planning Policy Guidance on Tourism and Planning - provides guidance and advice on tourism issues. The Guidance Note acknowledges that despite the continuing growth of tourism in Britain, the industry faces strong competition from overseas and especially within the single European Market. Guidance Note advises that, in order to realise its potential and to cater for changing patterns of tourism, rising standards and expectations, the industry needs to maintain a continuous programme of investment and reinvestment and constant improvements in the quality and value for money of the services and facilities offered.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Legal Department advises a Section 106 Agreement will need to be imposed to ensure holiday use is retained.

Principal Planning Officer (Policy) comments that Policy T3, the main criteria when upgrading the holiday accommodation usage of this site and within the Section 106 Agreement is to assure it covers points such as time limited accommodation by persons or groups of persons, and that it shall not be the primary address for any occupiers.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council approves of the proposal on the condition that only those buildings to be replaced, the subject of this application, are demolished at this time.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received to date.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The determining factor with regard to this application is firstly, whether the proposal conforms with the Council's planning policies with regard to this limited proposal and the overall development in this locality, and secondly, if there are any other material considerations that should be taken into account.

Before considering the determining factors with regard to this application, Members will note that the current proposal follows on from the refusal in March 2003 for an outline development of 39 residential dwellings. This was contrary to the Council's basic planning policy with regard to residential development in the countryside and loss of tourism facilities.

As previously noted the site lies outside the Totland development envelope and that the site relates to permanent holiday accommodation. Policy T6 states that planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposal map, will be approved where they meet certain criteria. One such criteria for development of holiday accommodation is that planning proposals for the development of holiday accommodation will only be acceptable in principle where they are associated with an existing permanent accommodation site or, most importantly, under section H, the Council is satisfied the development will be retained for holiday use.

After negotiations with the applicant and agent a draft Section 106 Agreement has been submitted which would provide the restrictions to be imposed on these two units and the whole in the event that permission is granted for its redevelopment. After liaising with our Legal Department we are advised that as the units would be sold separately but the freehold retained by applicant, then a Section 106 would be preferable to conditions of planning permission, and that the restrictions stated are acceptable and can be enforced.

Occupation of the existing chalets on site is limited to holiday accommodation only. However, there is no requirement for the chalets to be retained in a single ownership and, consequently, they could be sold separately. Following discussions with the applicants and their agents, it is understood that, in order to provide the necessary funding to redevelop the site, it would be their intention to sell the chalets on a leasehold basis, whilst retaining the freehold for the site. They have indicated in correspondence submitted in respect of the proposal that a restriction, limiting the occupation of the chalets by any person, family or group of persons to a period not exceeding 6 weeks in any year would, in their opinion, be too restrictive. Therefore, they would seek a variation to the occupancy restriction by which the owners of the individual chalets could occupy them for holiday purposes only, with no limit on the number of weeks in any year. It would be the applicants' intention to manage the site and those owners wishing to sub-let their chalets could do so for holiday purposes only, with a restriction that any person, group of people or family could only occupy for holiday purposes for a period not exceeding 6 weeks in each year. I am satisfied that these restrictions should ensure that the accommodation is retained for holiday purposes only, thereby making a positive contribution to the tourism economy.

To the east of Island View Chalets is a complex known as Beachside Bungalows, identified within the local plan as holiday chalet accommodation. The holiday restrictive position imposed states: "The proposed holiday chalets shall not be used as living accommodation during the period 16 November to 14 November except for 2 weeks at Christmas in each year". The reason for this condition is to provide a short-term letting facility to supplement seasonal tourism.

On the basis the proposed use still maintains a link with tourism, I consider that development of a pair of semi-detached holiday bungalows accords with the Council's general planning policies with regard to primary tourism developments.

Existing chalets within the site are single storey flat roofed buildings which, by reason of their low level nature, have a limited impact in the landscape. Proposed chalets will consist of a more updated design, still as a single storey element, with a shallow pitched roof. The proposed chalets will be built to a high specification to include full disabled access. I am of the opinion that the appearance of the chalets in relation to its surroundings is of sympathetic design whilst protecting and enhancing the local character and distinctiveness, and would arguably improve the appearance of the site.

As previously mentioned, this application forms part of an overall development proposal of 48 chalets together with a warden's bungalow, outdoor swimming pool and tennis court, all of which are shown in detail, and current application seeks to establish the principle of redevelopment.

Whilst previous applications were refused on highway safety issues, in this instance the proposal involves replacement of chalets on a one for one basis and it is not envisaged that development proposed would result in an increase in vehicle movements. Therefore, I do not consider that refusal on highway grounds would be justified.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that design of semi-detached holiday bungalows are sympathetic in scale and enhances the quality and character and does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the countryside. I also consider that by means of the Section 106 Agreement the development will be retained for holiday use and therefore proposal complies with Policies S4, S6, G4, G5, D1, D2, T1, T3, T6, C1 and TR7.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01
4	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02
5	None of the chalets provided in the development hereby approved shall be used other than for holiday purposes. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/16015/L P/02255/03 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 17/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: George Jenkins Transport Ltd

Building to house containers/trailers

George Jenkins Transport, Bigbury Farm, Alverstone Road, Apse Heath, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360LH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is potentially contentious and is being reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the 20 April 2004 meeting, will have taken 14 weeks to process, the delay being attributed to excess volume of work.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Bigbury farm is former farm complex located on the north east side of the Apse Heath cross roads and is accessed via a long and narrow, metalled access lane which joins Alverstone Road approximately 100 metres north of the cross roads. The farm complex of buildings is low lying and surrounded by open, agricultural land. The complex of building comprise brick, stone and slate structures and the more recently constructed brick, stone and steel clad roofed office building situated on the southern side. There are also large, steel framed and clad buildings towards the rear of the group of buildings and an open yard area to both the south and east. The farm track continues on in an easterly direction past the northern side of the complex to agricultural land beyond and is a public right of way.

RELEVANT HISTORY

October 1976 – Planning permission was granted for the use of the premises as a haulage contracting yard but with a limitation to 2 vehicles. In December 1977 planning consent was granted for the rebuilding of the farm house. In July 1986 a planning application seeking to remove the restrictive conditions was approved but only for a temporary period of 2 years, a consent which allowed up to 9 vehicles to operate. That permission was renewed in October 1987 for a temporary period of 1 year. In March 1989 planning permission to remove the conditions was again refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed in June 1990. In September 1991 an appeal against an Enforcement Notice was allowed which, in effect, granted permanent planning permission for the depot without limit on numbers of vehicles. In 1998 planning permission was refused for the erection of the new office building but a revised scheme was approved in November 1999.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning consent sought for erection of a new building to house containers and trailers and for the extensions to the existing trailer park. Plans show the extensions to the parking area to be both on the southern and eastern sides of the existing site, areas being 34 metres by 60 metres and 54 metres by a maximum of 55 metres respectively. The area on the southern side is located at adjoining the recently constructed offices and extends into the open, undeveloped land between Bigbury Farm and properties fronting Newport Road but, due to land levels, is at a very much lower level. The eastern area extends into open, undeveloped land towards an existing farm track but can only be achieved by extensive excavation to achieve a level area. No details of surfacing have been provided.

The proposed building is shown to be 42 metres long and 20 metres deep, 5 metres to eaves level and ridge level shown as 8.5 metres, taller than the existing building and sited approximately 11 metres from it parallel to and approximately 12 metres from the northern boundary. The building is proposed to be steel framed and clad on three sides and its roof with UPVC coated steel cladding.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Outside any designated development envelope. Within an area of countryside which is not zoned as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or under any other specific notation.

Policy E1 (Promote Suitably Located New Employment Sites) and Policy E8 (Employment in the Countryside) applies. Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) is significant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Rights of Way Officer raises concern regarding possible conflicts between users of the public footpath (Bigbury Lane) and of any increase in traffic created by the proposed expansion.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Newchurch Parish Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at the time of writing.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received but it is not anticipated that there would not be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Following a refusal of planning permission and a subsequent unsuccessful appeal by the operator for an alternative site at Scotchells Brook, this application has been received expanding the area and proposing a new building to house containers and trailers at the operator’s original location. The proposals amount to a substantial increase in operational area of about 48% but it is understood that, despite this increase in area there would be only a marginal increase in usage in the site, the applicant claims that the increased use would give more flexibility and versatility to the operational centre; that there is no intended increase in vehicular fleet (standing currently at 27 vehicles).

In terms of policy and principle, the business is long established at this location and policies E1 and E8 promote employment in countryside locations where the proposal is of benefit to the rural economy, if a scale and design appropriate to the location and represents a development or an expansions of firms which could not be expected top relocate whilst not having an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the countryside.

This is an existing employment site and the proposals represent an expansion. The site is located in a position where natural folds in the landscape reduce the visual impact of the site and the additions in this location to both area and buildings can be accommodated satisfactorily within this part of the countryside. Accordingly I do not consider there to be sustainable objection in policy and principle.

Development in the countryside clearly has implications of visual impact and it is clear that the proposed new building is taller than the one it adjoins. However, the site is in an area which abuts higher land on its west and south and only long distance views of the site are available from either the north or the east. In addition, it is proposed to reduce ground levels by excavation to achieve a level site for the vehicles and, as such, the grouping of the buildings is unlikely to have a significant visual impact, especially if adequate landscaping and land moulding are carried out. The excavated material to achieve the lower level to site the building could be used for bunding around the north and east sides and, together with planting, any visual impact of the development could be significantly reduced.

Concerns have been raised by the Rights of Way section who have identified the potential conflicts between pedestrians using Bigbury Lane which is a designated right of way, a footpath which links with several other footpaths in the vicinity affording public access through various routes. The agents have investigated the question of additional conflict with pedestrians and the applicants have stated that there is at present a maximum of one vehicle movement per hour during the normal working day, that no additional vehicles are intended to the fleet and therefore there should be no additional impact on pedestrians. I am of the opinion that the marginal impact on vehicle movements is unlikely to conflict with pedestrian use of the right of way.

In terms of pollution, this could be due to noise and fumes and any possible effect on adjoining properties and also effects of leaks etc. from vehicles and possible pollution of water courses.

At the appeal in 1991, when the Inspector allowed the permanent use of the site without any limit on numbers of lorries, it was allowed on the condition that the then proposed improvements and resiting of the access road and the creation of a bund were implemented. These steps he felt would reduce noise impacts significantly and sufficiently to allow permission. Given that the numbers of vehicle movements, as claimed by the applicant to remain the same as existing, I think it would be difficult to substantiate resistance on the basis of increased noise on adjoining properties. Conditions can be applied to ensure that oil and fuel spillages from vehicles etc. can be controlled by the usual conditions.

In summary the enlargement of the existing yard and erection of a building, without increase in numbers of vehicles is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the considerations in the evaluation section above and bearing in mind the recent developments relating to the Scotchells Brook site, the expansion of the existing centre would appear to be the applicant’s only alternative and the expansion of the existing centre is consistent with policies E1 and E8 and policy C1 of the Unitary Development Plan all of which seek to support rural enterprise but whilst maintaining the character of the countryside within which it is proposed.

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	The building hereby approved shall only be used for the storage of containers and trailers and for the normal maintenance and repair of trailers and tractor units as part of the existing haulage business established at Bigbury Farm and neither the building nor the yard shall be used for the maintenance of other vehicles which are not part of the haulage business without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The site is in an area where but for the circumstances of the existing business, general vehicle maintenance and repair would not normally be approved and in accordance with Policies E1 and E8 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	This permission shall authorise the use of the existing haulage depot, its extension and the new building hereby approved to a maximum of 27 haulage vehicles in total. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, nearby residential properties and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TR7 and in accordance with Policy E8 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Before the proposed building and extensions to the yard area are brought into use, landscaping comprising land moulding and tree and shrub planting shall take place around the perimeter of the development in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying in the first 5 years following planting shall be replaced with examples of a similar species and in such numbers as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The extensions to the yard hereby approved shall be surfaced in materials to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area.
7	Prior to being discharged into any water course, surface water sewer or soak away system, all surface water drainage from any parking areas and hard standing shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed at a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy P2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Any above ground store/storage tank/container and associated pipework shall be bunded in a manner so as to retain at least 110% volume of tank capacity. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund which shall be sealed so as to retain any spillages. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy P2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/18086/B P/01431/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 23/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Godshill Park Developments

Hotel & conference room with link to existing restaurant (Environmental Statement submitted) (readvertised application)

Lakeside, High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LJ

This application was deferred at the 2^nd March 2004 Development Control Committee to negotiate a better design. No new plans have been submitted and the agent has not been given instructions to negotiate.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of the Local Member who felt that as he lives opposite the site that a more open and transparent decision would be evident if the matter went to Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The application was registered on 17 July 2003.. The development required an Environmental Statement that was not submitted with the application, and accordingly the application was held in abeyance. A better solution has tried to be negotiated.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site of the proposed development lies to the south of Wootton close to Kite Hill and opposite The Sloop Public House. It is located on the south side of the A3054 at Wootton Bridge on the western bank of a large body of brackish water known as the Old Mill Pond.

The site has been previously developed with an existing building (restaurant) overlooking the Mill Pond and an area dug out that was formerly a swimming pool. The site is crossed by paths created through informal use.

The site is cordoned by trees, including Hurst Copse Ancient Oak Woodland to the south and enjoys a number of trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

RELEVANT HISTORY

The existing Lakeside Restaurant is now unused, but was once part of a larger tourist related use which consisted of a country club building with 24 chalets and a swimming pool. An associated camping site was located immediately to the south of the application site.

In 1990 outline planning permission was granted for 60 holiday lodges and a leisure club on the development site. The application was accompanied by an agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which prevented the use of any of the lodges as a permanent residence by any one person for more than three months in a calendar year, or for purposes other than holiday accommodation.

A further outline planning permission was granted in 1993 for 60 holiday lodges and a leisure club and permission was granted in 1996 on a reserved matters application.

An outline planning application for residential development of 40 dwellings was submitted to the Isle of Wight Council in October 1996. Following a non-determination, an appeal to the Secretary of State was made. A local Inquiry into the appeal was held on 30 and 31 July 1997 and the appeal dismissed. Following a High Court ruling, the previous application was not implemented.

TCP/18086/A – P/1380/00 – Planning permission granted for a hotel and conference centre subject to conditions on 20/08/2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement which is centred around issues of ecology and landscape as the main environmental aspects of the development proposals. Traffic generation, water level management and visitor pressure are also considered.

The applicant describes the development as follows:

“The proposed redevelopment of the Lakeside site, to include a new hotel, with conference facility, was given formal planning approval in 2001, under TCP/18086/A – P/1380/00.

This consent was for a substantial hotel and conference facility, the application included a full Environmental Impact Statement, and Landscaping Scheme, together with associated agreement in relation to drainage, etc.

For a number of reasons, it has proved difficult to get the approved scheme off the ground, and in this respect it is proposed to revise the project, to reduce the scale and complexity at this time, to allow it to move forward.

In every respect the proposal is as the approved scheme, but the hotel is smaller. Within the in-house facilities, the new scheme will link the new hotel with the existing Lakeside Restaurant, and incorporate a smaller conference unit.

The linking of the existing Lakeside Restaurant and the new hotel, is accommodated via the existing flat roof additions, with the new conference unit constructed in the same vein, giving a common link, whilst maintaining a separation between the existing and the new.

There will be no change to the requirements for drainage as already approved, as the new scheme is smaller than the consent already in place.

The landscaping and the new access bridge, will also be as the consent already in place.”

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are relevant:

D1 Standards of Design:

"Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should conform with the following criteria:

(a) respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

(b) sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

(d) provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public, including the disabled;

(e) provide adequate daylight, sunlight and circulation for the public, including the disabled;

(f) respect historic street and footpath patterns;

(g) do not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate spacing between properties;

(h) do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings;

(i) do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site;

(j) retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area."

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site:

"Development approved by the Council will be required to create an interesting and attractive environment within the site by:

(a) achieving a high standard of design and relating well to adjacent buildings;

(b) taking account of views into and out of the site;

(c) where possible, incorporating existing landscape features and retaining existing trees, woodland, hedgerows, ponds, streams and water features;

(d) taking account of changes in levels or slopes;

(e) incorporating adequate landscaping proposals."

D3 - Landscaping:

"In appropriate cases, planning applications will be expected to be accompanied by appropriate landscaping as an integral part of the scheme and will be approved provided the following criteria are met:

(a) the scheme reflects the existing features, character and locality;

(b) space has been allowed for a suitable landscape scheme to be implemented. The scheme should include details of hard and soft landscaping, natural features, the retention and management of trees, proposed changes to land drainage and levels as well as boundaries and parking areas;

TR4 - Transport Statement Requirements for Major Development:

"Planning applications for developments which, by their nature, attract a significant number of persons, such as large retail uses, tourist attractions, residential developments or places or employment, must include a supporting statement which shows how the proposal has addressed the need to travel to and from the development by car. The Council will require to be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken to provide for public transport, bicycle and foot travel before approving any application."

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development:

"Planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of the following matters, for highway safety:

(a) that the proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians;

(b) that any new road layout, including vehicular access, road junctions and crossing points are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled."

T2 - Sites Suitable for Tourism Related Development:

"Planning proposals for tourism uses in the areas specified below and defined on the proposals map will be acceptable in principle.”

T6 - Permanent Accommodation Sites (other than hotels):

Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

(a) they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

(b) they do not detract from their surroundings;

(d) new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character:

"Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area."

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

"Within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and:

(d) reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development."

C7 - River Corridors and Estuaries.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C9 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

C11 - Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland:

"Development which would result in loss or damage to trees, forests or woodland of individual importance or which contribute to the character or amenity of the area will not be approved, unless the Council is satisfied that there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replacement planting is undertaken on the site. Where this is the case, a condition of approval is that the applicant must show a strategy for after-care and maintenance that the Council feel is both satisfactory and enforceable."

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage:

“Development proposals which are likely to adversely affect the archaeological heritage and features of the Island, directly or indirectly, will not be permitted. Planning applications will be approved provided that:

(c) where development is proposed at a location which is likely to affect an archaeological site or its setting, permission may exceptionally be granted if preservation of archaeological remains in situ can be achieved by the careful use of appropriate layout, foundations and design.”

B10 - Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest:

“Development proposals which are likely to adversely affect an Historic Park or Garden or Historic Landscape of national or local importance, or its setting, directly or indirectly, will not be permitted.”

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision:

“Before granting planning permission for development, the Council shall be satisfied that adequate infrastructure, services and supplies infrastructure or drainage will be available to serve a site and its future users in terms of access, water supply, electricity and other power supplies, drainage and car parking and that these can be provided in an environmentally acceptable way. In addition there should be no adverse effect upon supplies, infrastructure or drainage for existing or other approved development.”

In addition, the following guidelines have been followed:

PPG9 - Nature Conservation.

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

Wootton Village Design Statement.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

The Isle of Wight Landscape, Countryside Commission 1994.

The Isle of Wight AONB Management Plan. Isle of Wight AONB Joint Advisory Committee 1994.

Isle of Wight Countryside Design Summary.

Countryside Character Volume 7 - South East and London, Countryside Agency 1999.

Historic Parks and Gardens of the Isle of Wight, H V Basford 1989.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Council’s Ecology Officer states “I have no comments to make upon this application provided that all the conditions relating to the use, landscaping and management of the grounds are carried forward from the previous approval.” He further adds “I concur with the comments made by EPR Consultants (submitted as part of the Environmental Statement) in connection with the environmental implications of the revised design. These relate to protected species which may be using the parts of the site which will be directly affected by the development.

1. Badgers. Badgers were excluded from the old swimming pool prior to the submission of the original planning application in 2001. Since that time, the site has lain fallow and badgers may have recolonised. Any works carried out within 30 metres of an active badger sett would be in contravention of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

2. Bats. A bat survey was not carried out at the time of the original planning application. However, since that time, additional European legislation in relation to the protection of bats and their roosts requires that any buildings and trees affected by development should be checked for bat roosts and, if bats are affected by development then a licence form DEFRA is required and appropriate mitigation should be put in place.

I would suggest that the applicant should be advised of these matters by letter.”

Environmental Health advise that the application has not submitted sufficient evidence regarding, type of food, ventilation system, hours of operation including business hours of the premises, and noise levels.

AONB comment;

“The site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Bearing in mind the existing permission on the site, we are keen to ensure that all development within the AONB, meets the purpose of the designation, is in accordance with relevant planning policy and guidance, benefits the local rural economy/community and meets high standards of design. In this instance we believe there are opportunities for promoting and achieving an example of ‘Best Practice’ on this site with regards to development within an AONB.

With regards to the submitted application, we do have concerns about the design, in particular we feel that the proposed addition makes poor relationship in terms of scale, design and materials to the existing and also in terms of the landscape features of the site.

Whilst only a suggestion, we feel that there is potential for this site/proposal to meet the objectives of a proposal for a ‘Sustainability Centre for the Island’ which was discussed at a workshop (31 July 2003) run by the IW Economic Partnership (Liz Wood and Roger Craven) as a possible project bid through the Area Investment Framework (AIF). This of course would also have some benefits to the applicant.

Objectives for the project include demonstrating:

· Sustainable build

· Use of the Island’s renewable energy resources

· Sensitive regard for landscape and the environment

· Incorporation of sustainable transport initiatives into new development

And providing:

· A tourism/education facility to benefit the Island economy and community

· A centre of excellence to promote development and awareness of sustainable initiatives around the Island.

I would welcome your thoughts whether you believe it would be worthwhile for the applicant to explore this possibility with the IW Economic Partnership.”

English Nature comments:

“I can confirm that the above application will not have a significant effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar and will not require an appropriate assessment. English Nature does not wish to object to the application under the wider biodiversity interests of the Ryde Sands to Wootton Creek SSSI.

However, I would like to question the effect of the application on the nearby bat populations of Briddlesford Copse. At this stage we do not wish to object, but would like to know whether a bat survey of the existing buildings and trees has been carried out as part of the original Environmental Impact Statement. If this is not the case you will need to contact English Nature’s Species Officer Andrew Whitehouse to determine what needs to be done.”

The Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate access and insufficient information.

Environment Agency give general planning advice regarding any works to a culvert and ownership requirements regard to any watercourse.

Fire and Rescue Service consider that the proposals are considered satisfactory.

The Conservation and Design Officer comments;

“I have considered the submitted plans and am concerned that the proposed hotel would be a large building which would be monolithic in appearance of three storeys in height under a substantial hipped roof with little variety in the roofline or elevational treatment.

No attempt has been made to break up the mass of the building or to provide different visual elements.

The roof pitch and shape makes no reference to the distinctive and prominent roof design of the adjacent building (Lakeside Restaurant) and the design is considered pedestrian in character with a series of square proportioned domestic scaled windows evenly spaces throughout the elevation. The elevations lack any rhythm and there is no evidence of any architectural detail or design quality.

The site is prominently located and the adjacent restaurant is of distinctive design. Whilst I would not advocate copying the details of an existing building, I do consider that the new development should acknowledge the character of the existing building and the location as a whole. The buildings will be seen in context with each other, particularly when viewed across the millpond.

The present design seems to be a lost opportunity and this site requires a development of distinction and quality in this important location.

I note that a previous scheme was larger in footprint although lower in profile and also provided a building of more distinctive appearance. I consider this a more appropriate design approach for this location.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wootton Bridge Parish Council comments:

“The Parish Council supports this application in principle. However there are concerns over the design of the building which Members feel could be more in keeping with the surrounding. Furthermore Members would strongly recommend an adequate traffic management arrangement at the access onto the High Street. There are many traffic issues in Wootton High Street and in particular the lower High Street area including the effects of:

· The proposed Woodside Bay development at the New Road/High Street junction.

· The Woodland Cemetery, at Lakeside.

· The possible development of the High Street Methodist Church as a community facility.

· The traffic from the new larger ferries.

Accordingly the Parish Council repeats its suggestion already put to Highways that consideration be given to providing a roundabout at the Lakeside junction. Members are aware of the costs involved but feel that it merits consideration, bearing in mind the number of vehicles using this stretch of highway, the road safety issues, and the issues in the lower High Street.

They go on to further comment when the application was readvertised.

“The Parish Council supports this application in principle.

However Members are concerned over the access onto the High Street.

As mentioned in the Parish Council’s previous comments, (see my letter dated 15 August 2003), there are various traffic issues in the lower High Street including the proposed redevelopment of the former Warner’s site at Woodside and its effects on the New Road/High Street junction, the Woodland Cemetery at Lakeside, the possible redevelopment of the High Street Methodist Church as a community facility and the traffic associated with the new larger ferries. In addition there is now the new Tesco store opposite Brannon Way, which is generating a considerable amount of traffic movement.

Furthermore the relocation of the Post Office from the village centre to the SPAR shop at the top end of the High Street brings with it highways issues. These issues include highway safety matters resulting from increased traffic movements to and from the SPAR shop immediately onto the traffic lights at this four way junction, and whether the light controlled pedestrian crossing near the now empty Post Office needs to be relocated.

Although these traffic issues are not directly connected with this application, Members feel very strongly that the High Street traffic situation, including the Lakeside junction, needs to be considered as a whole to ensure that a comprehensive and successful traffic management system is designed to take into account these problems.

The need to keep traffic flowing through the village is an absolute priority and this is why Members suggested a roundabout at the Lakeside/High Street junction as part of their comments submitted in respect of the previous application back in August. This view still holds. Also, a proper entrance is required, particularly if coaches are to be using the site.

Members are therefore of the strong view that a traffic management system is needed at the Lakeside/High Street junction but that this needs to be considered as part of a wider traffic plan for the entire High Street, of which Members would welcome involvement.

Finally, some concerns have been voiced over the impact of the associated traffic on the unmade road within the site, for example: -

1. The effect on residents who use this road to gain access to their properties.

2. The effect of the additional traffic, particularly coaches, on any underground utility services.

It is requested that any issues in this respect should be investigated and addressed.“

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter supporting proposal in principle if development is of good quality. Need to be assured that peaceful environment would not be disturbed.

Two letters from Campaign to Protect Rural England. Comments on previous approval but is concerned with the design of this development. It should be sensitive to its environment. Concern regarding process.

Island Watch object to the unnecessarily large and intrusive hotel building.

Two letters questioning need and objecting to proposal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The Crime Prevention Officer comments;

“This proposed development would be very much welcomed to change an area that looks deserted and beginning to look rundown which in its current state is certain to attract crime and disorder problems.

The majority of crime prevention measures for hotels is security of the buildings and management issues.

As regards this application it is the parking area for cars and coaches that needs looking at. A public footpath runs close to the hotel property, which makes identifying prospective intruders very difficult. The landscaping of the hotel property is very important to ensure good surveillance and unless there is outdoor security staff, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system would be advisable to allow staff in the building to keep an eye on guests’ cars and coaches. To ensure the CCTV works to its optimum a good lighting package is required. As the amount of residential property in the area is low, good lighting is essential, especially to counter the ‘Fear of Crime’ issue during the short daylight hours in the winter. Due to the location amongst trees and relatively isolated position lighting is so important with a restaurant open to the general public all year round. There is nation good practice about down lighting giving very little light pollution to refer to.

All ground floor windows in the hotel should have window-opening restrictors to stop unwanted entry especially during periods of hot weather.

We have no objections in principle to the application but would like to ensure that the approach to, and the car parking area is properly lit with good surveillance.”

EVALUATION

This application seeks to develop an area of land which has had a former tourist use and is allocated within the Unitary Development Plan for tourist development. It also falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to sensitive Nature Conservation Areas. There is no principle objection to this land use, although as often is the case, ‘the devil is in the detail’ regarding the specific impacts on the areas of acknowledged importance.

We now find ourselves in the position of previously approving a larger scheme (in footprint) and accordingly to some extent all the issues have been previously explored and can be resolved by condition. However there is one fundamental issue that has changed, in my opinion for the worse – that of the design and scale of the building.

It is essential that if the existing penetration with the countryside of buildings is to be supported by an additional building then that building should not steal anything from the environment but add something to it. The proposal pays little respect to this and sits uncomfortably within its setting. This proposal could be in any town location. Its design does not meet the standard for allowing development and is a large step backwards on the previous approval.

Quite clearly, the proposal will generate activity which will be controlled within the complex with car parking being cordoned by the development.

Of primary concern is the use of the mill pond for recreational purposes and possible noise and light pollution. The latter can be controlled somewhat by conditions restricting freestanding lights and directing the activity away from the noise sensitive areas by way of condition. The restaurant and conference facility lights can again (by condition) be turned off when not in use. Therefore, minimising any impact.

With the application positive commitments are being made to manage semi-improved grassland to the south of the site and make this available for users of the site. Blackbridge Brook passes through the wetlands to the mill pond and eventually out to sea and is surrounded by Firestone Copse, Six Acres Copse, Swan Copse and Hurst Copse beyond, which are SSSIs and the mill pond itself is a SINC.

The pontoons in themselves as proposed are unlikely to have a significant effect, but they do encourage a use that may.

The traffic has been assessed as part of the Environmental Statement taking into consideration previous planning approvals for sixty holiday lodges and leisure club. Figures provided show that the development would not generate any additional traffic to the leisure club. The development is pitched at 75 per cent occupancy rate with many visitors arriving by coach or taxi due to the location close to the ports. There has been 113 car parking spaces provided. Highways are not satisfied that the access is acceptable but this has to be taken in the light that a larger traffic generation has been approved on this land with the support of Highways.

It is not envisaged that the traffic generation will be any more than the previous use and accordingly there is no requirement to improve the access onto Wootton High Street.

Members will be aware that there is a large protected tree at the access which makes the visibility splays less than perfect, but some improvement can be made by removing scrub from the visibility splay on the east of the site.

There is an access road proposed to the development which follows the line of the existing bridle way. It is proposed to be re-tarmacked, but this is a bridle way and future maintenance of this road will need to be resolved as an issue with the Council. Appropriate road markings for shared use should be made.

Within this roadway there is a small bridge made of dressed stone which has substantial merit, although it has started to fall into a state of disrepair. The proposals would have to strengthen over this bridge to accommodate the larger vehicles such as coaches and any integrity of this bridge would be lost. The bridge was built between 1790 and 1793 and the County Archaeologist states in her representations on the previous permission that it is an attractive feature for the former landscape park and is worthy of protection and preservation and is also recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Records. By effectively moving the roadway eastwards and taking into consideration that some trees which are protected may be lost, a solution can be achieved. It would clearly show the bridle way goes off in one direction over the bridge and the transport goes on the other side.

The car park will provide 113 car parking spaces, but there is a need to reduce travel by car to and from the site and this should be encouraged by designated cycle hoops as not to deter any would-be users. This could be covered by condition.

It is important to preserve the local landscape character when considering this development and the design of the development has been touched on earlier. There is no proposed significant removal of landscaping and appropriate species of trees will be provided to enhance the development and add to the existing landscape quality. The landscape issues have been assessed by the AONB Officer. Concern has been raised by the design.

Confirmation has been sought from Southern Water and previously received verbally that the High Street has capacity to accommodate the development, although it is stated that it can within the Environmental Statement. Surface water from the buildings is proposed to be discharged to the millpond and appropriate attenuation and interceptors will be provided. A condition can cover these.

With the previous application Members attached considerable significant to the requirements of Policy U11 of the Unitary Development Plan which states:

“Before granting planning permission for development, the Council should be satisfied that adequate infrastructure, services and supplies infrastructure or drainage will be available to serve a site and its future users in terms of access, water supply, electricity and other power supplies, drainage and car parking and that these can be provided in an environmentally acceptable way. In addition, there should be no adverse effect upon supplies, infrastructure or drainage for existing or other approved development.”

It is essential to provide adequate services and infrastructure to serve developments and those who will live and work there. Infrastructure and services include the provision of adequate supplies of water and power and, importantly, facilities for the disposal of waste and stormwater.

The written representations from the applicant’s agent are repeated below. He raises a number of points of information and clarification:

· Southern Water Services have confirmed that the existing system is capable of dealing with foul sewage at a rate of up to 1.5 litres/second. The agent has produced written evidence to this effect.

· The agent has also provided detailed calculations prepared by the applicant’s consultant engineer which indicate that the foul sewage generated by the proposed development will fall within the guidelines set out by Southern Water Services.

· Draws attention to a letter from Southern Water Services to the Case Officer confirming that the existing sewers are capable of accepting the rate of discharge.

· Agent has provided comparison statistics to indicate that the likely measured flow will be less than half of the 1.5 litres/second referred to by Southern Water Services.

· He confirms that surface water drainage will not be discharged to the local sewerage system in Wootton High Street, but instead will run to the existing millpond via suitable interceptors.

The agent comes to the following conclusion:

“... that the calculated projected flow rate of 1.5 litres/second are more realistic, and in practice will be much less, the sewers are capable of accepting up to 1.5 litres/second as is the pumping station, the drainage as proposed is therefore acceptable.”

“... in the interests of pushing the Lakeside project forward and to mitigate any potential worries, our clients can offer to incorporate a flow balancing system to the Lakeside foul drainage, which will offer the benefit of controlling discharge of the sewage from the site, so that it is prevented from entering the sewerage system, at times of heavy rain...”

For avoidance of doubt, the agent previously provided a copy of a letter from the Planning Engineer for Southern Water Services to confirm that the information contained in the letter to this Authority on 21 June 2001 is still relevant, remains correct and there had been no change in circumstances.

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 consider that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in this report there are clearly a number of design issues on which this proposal fails to comply with relevant national and local policies. I remain concerned with the scale, mass, height and details of design of this building.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance, would be an instrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality as well as having a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenities enjoyed by the users of his surrounding land uses and would be contrary to Policy S6 (To be of High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the proposed access onto the highway. The Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the existing highway and in the absence of further details it is considered the proposal is not suitable for approval.

TCP/19235/D P/00644/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 19/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Messrs Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park Ltd

Renewal: Bungalow with integral garage; formation of vehicular access

land between Hillway Annexe and Woodclose, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO35

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

In the light of a similar application in the locality which is before Members for determination it was considered appropriate to formally present this case which raises similar issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 4 and a half weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site lies approximately 1 mile west of Bembridge on northern side of Hillway Road between existing property known as Woodclose to west and Hillway Annexe to east. Members will recall that latter site was subject of recent site inspection (2 April) when Members resolved to approve rebuild of existing property on site contrary to Officer's recommendation.

Site dimensions are approximately 18.4 metres width by 26 metres depth.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning history of the site is linked with application TCP/7676/F which is also on this agenda (Item No. 5).

In 1987 planning permission refused for two dwellings on site between Chameleon and Whitecliff Lodge, and single dwelling on application site under consideration on grounds of non-allocation, development contrary to Development Plan and intensification of residential development. Subsequent appeal allowed for both east and west sites comprising two and single dwelling respectively. In appeal decision in February 1988 Inspector stated that in his opinion the site "fulfills the criteria of infill development, since they are small gaps and are flanked on either side by residential development".

Subsequently in April 1989 approval of reserved matters granted for both developments, and more recently renewals were granted in March 1993. Both planning consents expired early in 1998.

Application seeking consent (not renewal) was submitted in late 1998 and approved January 1999.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for renewal of full application for single detached bungalow on this site with vehicular access. Three bedroomed unit would be centrally located within site and would comprise external brick finish under concrete tiled roof. Bungalow is simple in style and design. Existing hedge is shown to be retained and reduced in height to 1 metre on road frontage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Following policies are considered relevant.

Policy G2 (Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes)

Policy G5 (Development outside defined settlements)

Policy D1 (Standards of Design)

Policy H5 (Infill development)

Policy H9 (Residential development outside development boundaries)

Advice contained within National Policy Guidance Notes 3 (Housing) and 7 (Countryside) is also relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer comments not received at time of preparing report.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not received at time of report preparation.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received from adjoining owner/occupier supporting proposal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

As with application to east being considered at this meeting, determining factors are whether or not circumstances have changed since earlier application approved in January 1999.

As previously referred to, application site lies outside designated development envelope and permission granted on basis of infill development. Whilst in the intervening period Unitary Development Plan has been adopted, in terms of policies applying to countryside development and in particular infill development, approach remains unchanged in respect of application of Policy H5.

Members will be aware that Policy H5 does allow for infill development in countryside provided such development will not unduly damage amenity of the neighbouring property and surrounding area. Infill development is generally recognised as relating to a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage.

In this particular instance application site can be seen as gap in frontage of some six dwellings, however Members should note that whilst application site itself extends to some 18.4 metres width, actual distance between nearest adjoining residential property's side walls totals some 40 metres approximately, and Members should be made aware that any approval on this site may result in pressure for further infill development in this particular locality where potential exists.

Nevertheless, on the basis of the Inspector's decision in 1988 and subsequent decisions on this site, I am of the opinion that there has been no material change in respect of either policy application or site circumstances that would justify a refusal at this time.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations contained in this report I am of the opinion that site characteristics are such as to represent appropriate infill development, and in the light of previous decisions on this site it would be unreasonable to resist proposal.

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	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) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 2 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.
5	The car parking and turning shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Existing hedgerow frontage shall be retained and where necessary augmented with appropriate species to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority at a height not exceeding 1 metre above road level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25090/B P/00261/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland

Registration Date: 05/02/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr K Jefferies

Pair of semi-detached houses (revised scheme)(corrected description)(readvertised application)

Byeways, Broadway, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390BL

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor J Howe, on grounds that the proposal does not make provision for off-street parking and the loss of community a facility, the bus shelter, being replaced with unacceptable design.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 11 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application due to request from Local Member for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site fronts onto The Broadway, currently forming the front garden of Byeways, which is overgrown and not maintained. The site is set at a higher level and is bounded at the front by an existing stone wall. Adjacent the south-western corner of the plot is an existing bus shelter. The access to Byeways and several other properties is through an archway immediately to the north of the site. Adjoining properties comprise of shops and flats/houses, property to the south is two storeys and at a lower level than the application site. Property to north is three storeys and also at a lower level.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25090 - Outline for a dwelling. Consent granted 20 November 2002.

TCP/25090/A - Pair of semi-detached houses with parking. Refused 21 January 2004. Reasons for refusal was proposed development would likely lead to increased use of the existing access and that the access is unsatisfactory to service proposal by reason of unacceptable width, visibility and gradient.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Following a previous refusal on 21 January 2004 a revised application has been received which now omits the parking attempting to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. Consent is now sought for a pair of semi-detached houses to be sited fronting The Broadway with no off street parking. Proposal would necessitate relocation of existing bus shelter closer to the highway. Proposed semi-detached property will comprise of 2 bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen/dining room with rear garden area which was previously allocated for parking. Properties would be of similar to that of the property south of the application site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development boundary on the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the planned period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites of existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G4 - General locational criteria for development.

D1 - Standards of design.

D2 - Standards for development within the site.

D11 - Crime and Design.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

H5 - Infill development.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has no objections providing there is no direct vehicular access to the site and should be conditioned should Members be minded to approve application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council has expressed concern over vehicle access arrangements shown on the revised plans. The parking for vehicles shown relates to a different property. Parish Council does not agree to the removal of the existing brick built bus shelter and replacement with a glass screen since the existing offers shelter and seating for elderly residents of the village.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received objecting to the application on the grounds that there are very unclear plans showing dedicated off-street parking assigned to and under the control of the two new houses, as well as ensuring that Byeways itself also retains its own off-street parking.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Comments are awaited and will be reported at the meeting.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering this application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, and whether the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings.

Site is located within the development boundary and the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle. With regard to the suggestions of confusion on the parking for vehicles, Members are advised that previous refusal was issued on the grounds of highway safety and new proposal does not include any off-street parking facilities in order to overcome previous reasons for refusal.

I am satisfied that the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings without detracting from the amenities of the area or of neighbouring properties. In particular, site is of adequate width to accommodate building of similar proportions to that of the adjoining property to the south, this would not be out of keeping with the general pattern of the development in the area.

Concerns have been raised about the removal of the existing brick bus shelter and replacement with a glass screen. Whilst assessing the suitability of the existing shelter, it is important to consider the requirements of the Crime & Disorder Act, the Department of Transport Inclusive Mobility Guidelines, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Council's Local Transport Plan. The floor of the existing shelter is raised from the adjacent footway level, and is therefore not suitable to the mobility impaired. The shelter has no windows in the end walls and is unlit. As such, pedestrians are unaware of approaching buses and, at night, are subject to "stranger danger". In addition the shelter forms a natural gathering point for teenagers, which can be intimidating to legitimate bus users, and it is understood is regularly used as a public convenience.

In contrast, the proposed replacement shelter would be fully glazed, to provide protection for the bus users and lit, being specifically designed to overcome any potential crime and disorder implications. The additional improvements would make the bus stop fully disabled compliant, wheelchair access friendly, and be consistent with the Council's policy of improving and upgrading the bus infrastructure. Any desire to provide a seating area for elderly persons should be independently addressed.

Negotiations have taken place with the applicant, who has agreed to donate part of his land along the front of the site to increase the width of the pavement, and is willing to cover the full costs of the removal of the existing bus shelter, replacement of new bus shelter and making good the area in question. This would be controlled by condition should Members be minded to approve application, requiring bus shelter to be provided prior to occupation of the dwellings.

With regard to concerns raised that no off-street parking being provided, the Highway Engineer has recommended approval and is therefore satisfied that the proposal would not compromise highway safety. Concern over the omission of off-street parking is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal when taking account of both national and local policies in respect of parking provision. This site is within Zone 3 of the Parking Guideline and is situated directly adjacent a bus stop, enabling future occupants to use the public transport facility. I am therefore of the view that approval of this development with no parking provision would accord with the objective of securing sustainable residential environments, and in particular national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car. In particular, proposal would result in a number of benefits, including provision of near and improved bus user facility together with an increase in the width of the pavement.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal to develop this site with a pair of semi-detached houses would make efficient use of the site without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring property, and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, particularly S1, S6, S7, G1, G4, D1, D2, H4, H5 and TR7.

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	Boundary treatment shall be in accordance with the details shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No work shall commence on site, including site clearance, until a detailed method statement providing the timescales for excavation of material and commencement of construction work and measures to be implemented to ensure stability of the ground shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement. Reason: To minimise the risk of development causing instability to surrounding land and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
5	Notwithstanding the provision of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and enhancing 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 by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provision of any Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Order, there shall be no direct vehicular access to the development hereby approved, from neither the existing access road (under the archway), nor from The Broadway without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	No work shall commence on site, including site clearance, until a detailed method statement providing the timescales for excavation of material and commencement of construction work and measures to be implemented to ensure stability of the ground shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement. Reason: To minimise the risk of development causing instability to surrounding land and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The materials to be used for the construction of the dwellings hereby approved shall be in accordance with the material details on the plans and application form attached to and forming part of this decision notice, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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.

TCP/25275/A P/02473/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton

Registration Date: 12/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: West Island Developments

Demolition of hotel; residential development comprising a total of 36 dwellings in a mixed development of houses & flats with associated parking; formation of vehicular & pedestrian access (revised plans)

land adjoining Hill House, Queens Road/2 School Green Road/Brookbank and Brookside Forge, Brookside Freshwater, PO40

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved particularly contentious, raising a number of issues, particularly in respect of car parking provision and drainage issues, attracting a number of representations, all of which warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application, the processing of which will have taken 18 weeks to date. The processing of these applications has gone beyond the prescribed period due to complex issues involved, with particular reference to obtaining satisfactory information that the site can be adequately drained.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site of irregular shape, having limited frontages onto Brookside Road, Queens Road and School Green Road. Site takes the form of substantial area of the curtilage of No. 2 School Green Road and the curtilage of hotel premises Brookside Forge on the Brookside Road frontage. Site adjoins a number of properties, namely the curtilage of Brooklands located on the corner of Queens Road and School Green Road, the end of terrace property Hill House, which is one of a group of traditional terraced dwellings which extend to the south to the junction of Brookside Road with Queens road. A substantial area of the eastern boundary and the southern boundary of the area of the land which fronts School Green Road abuts a traditional chalet detached dwelling known as Brookbank, which has a lengthy vehicular access off Brookside Road, with the property itself standing to the west of the food retail premises, Somerfields.

Application includes an almost triangular shaped area being set to the south of the bus stop in School Green Road to west of Somerfield and east of No. 2 School Green Road. Southern boundary of that area of land abuts the northern boundary of the property Brookbank. Site has gentle falls both towards Brookside Road and School Green Road and has generally heavy front foliage cover.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In November 2002 an outline application was received in respect of 5 dwellings on the land which fronts School Green Road, with that application being withdrawn in December 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a full planning application which initially sought consent for 39 units but following negotiations this has been reduced to 36 units. Because of the general shape of the site and the various frontages the development is in the form of 4 elements, all to be served off the one access off Brookside Road.

Element 1 (Southern area including frontage onto Brookside Road)

Schedule - 3 terraced houses (2 two bedroomed and 2 three bedroomed units)

2 semi-detached houses (1 two bedroomed and 1 three bedroomed units)

1 detached house (1 three bedroomed unit)

2 maisonettes (2 two bedroomed units).

Total 8 no.

Element 2 (Located on Queens Road frontage immediately to south of southern boundary of property Brooklands and north of property Hill House)

Schedule - 11 two bedroomed flats in a two/three storey block, plots 9-19 inclusive.

Element 3 (Located between the eastern boundary of the curtilage of property Brooklands and western boundary of property Brookbank)

The proposal consists of a symmetrical flat block with central three storey element forming bridge over vehicular access and includes clocktower with 2 two storey wings either side.

Schedule - 2 three bedroomed units and 1 two bedroomed unit.

Total 3 no.

Element 4 (Located on School Green Road frontage between Somerfields Supermarket and No. 2 School Green road)

Proposed two/three storey block of 14 flats.

Schedule - 11 two bedroomed units, 3 one bedroom units.

Total 14 no.

Vehicular Access and Parking

Vehicular access to development is via a 4.5 metre carriageway, access off Brookside Road, with splayed junction and visibility splay. Carriageway serves a total of 38 parking spaces dispersed throughout the site, with the 8 units forming Element 1 being served by a total of 8 parking spaces all located within close proximity to the units which they serve.

Another 22 parking spaces located centrally on the site to south of Element 3 and east of Element 2, with the turning area also providing turning space for emergency vehicles.

The final 8 parking spaces located on the northern side of Element 3 accessed under the bridging unit in respect of Element 3 as previously described, and located to the south of the remaining curtilage of No. 2 School Green Road and to the east of the western boundary of the property Brooklands.

Landscaping and Footpath Provision

Car parking areas have been designed away from adjoining boundaries to allow for margin landscaping with Elements 2, 3 and 4 all being provided with landscaped areas, particularly in respect of Element 4 which has a landscaping area which fronts School Green Road and being immediately to the west of Somerfields Supermarket. This landscape area stands directly to the north of the property Brookbank.

Proposal also includes for a public seating and hardpaved landscaped area for communal use.

Proposal provides for a footpath provision on the western side of the proposed access road and links through the proposed seating and hard landscaped area, with footpath continuing in a northerly direction directly adjacent to the western boundary of Brookbank, having a width of 1 metre widening to 1.2 metres and then widening to 2 metres where the path extends through to School Green Road.

Flats are provided with cycle parking appropriately located, and similarly in respect of bin stores.

Offsite Works

The proposal provides for provision of 2 pinch points to be provided within Brookside Road in the form of road narrowing islands, including sign age, to form traffic calming in Brookside Road. Also proposal provides for a new footbridge to be erected across the brook on the southern side of Brookside Road, linking Brookside Road to the existing footpath which runs along the eastern side of Brookside Road and the brook itself.

Boundary Treatments

Because of the changes in level in respect of Element 4 and the adjoining property Brookbank and No. 2 School Green Road, proposal includes for new retaining walls along the northern boundary of Brookbank. Proposal also provides for a 1.2 metre high brick wall along the western boundary of the property Brookbank and a 1.8 metre high boundary wall along the eastern boundary of the property Brooklands.

Application has been accompanied by a Design Statement, the main of which are summarised as follows:

Ensure general mix of main units with predominance towards flats, but ensuring that houses are indicated on the Brookside Road entry point, thus resulting in a relatively high density of development.

Ensure layout does allow for any future development on adjoining land if and when that becomes available with particular reference to the arrangement of the access road.

Provide an opportunity for occupants to gain easy access through the site between Brookside Road and School Green Road.

Provide parking, ensuring dispersal throughout the site.

Design of the unit influenced by the wide variety of styles and designs, mass of the surrounding area, with a traditional approach being taken. Also the topography of the ground conditions dictates that the new buildings are at various levels. Reference made to the flats which front School Green Road being set down into the ground to reduce impact on the street scene and provide better access for pedestrians to the site.

Houses and the access road from Brookside Road generally follow the gradient of the ground to produce a stepped arrangement of units.

Flats to Queens Road are designed to step up and away from the adjoining property, in part following the ground levels and in part dug in.

Applicants have employed the services of drainage engineers; at the time of preparing the report it is understood that capacity checks are being made in respect of existing surface water and foul drainage in the area, and if attenuation is required it will be beneath the roads and parking areas.

Application has been accompanied by a report by (the Badger Action Group), who comment as follows.

"There is a badger stet on site at the piece of land adjacent to School Green Road. The activity now is the same as it was a year ago, that is occasional use. Badger hairs were found outside two of the three holes. The elderly lady that lived at Brookbank informed me that she feeds the badgers nightly.

Because of the lack of long term use and the proximately of the road causing disturbance to the badgers anyway, I believe English Nature will issue a licence to exclude, and therefore would have no objection to this development taking place.

Statement also recognises that the development will generate the need for affordable housing, and a separate letter supporting the application has been received from Southern Housing Group which has already identified the acquisition of two bedroom and three person flats for which there is a need in the Freshwater area. They indicate that they would make 3 of the total of 8 units required available for shared ownership to meet local need and to enable practical completion of the 106 Agreement.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development envelope boundaries defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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 development 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 and health facilities, etc.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 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 such as town centre sites.

· Emphasise on need for good quality designs.

· Document advises that new housing developments should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

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.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of the Housing Scheme.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR6 - Cycling and Walking.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

Reference is also made to recent Housing Needs Survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for single person accommodation, though there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

The site is located within Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum parking provision of 0 to 75% of parking guidelines, those guidelines requiring a parking space per bedroom.

Brookside Road is not identified as being within an identified flood plain area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers' comments not yet received, however I understand that the road layout arrangements, particularly the access onto Brookside Road, have been the subject of discussion along with the introduction of calming features as previously described.

Housing Association, as mentioned above, carried out its own consultation with the Council's Housing Department, and have identified the following in terms of housing need.

One bedroom accommodation - 171 registered - 12 homeless families

Two bedroom accommodation - 146 registered - 15 homeless families

Three bedroom accommodation - 75 registered - 2 homeless families.

Environment Agency initially recommended conditions be applied requiring a foul and surface water sewer scheme being submitted and approved by the Planning Authority, and also a surface water regulation system including detailed calculations to be designed, ensuring a run-off from the 1% probability stormwater is controlled and will restrict the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been greenfield. Any such scheme shall include maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the future.

In view of the level of additional stormwater that may occur as a result of this development, applicants have employed technical consultant and have submitted an initial scheme which has been vetted by the Environment Agency and at the time of preparing this report that Agency considers insufficient information has been submitted to discharge any proposed drainage conditions. Agency's main concern is that the route of the sewer be investigated to ensure that it does not discharge to the watercourse downstream, resulting in an increase in surface water runoff directly to the stream.

Applicants' consulting drainage engineers have carried out further discussions with the Environment Agency supported by additional information, and the Agency is now satisfied that the principle of surface water drainage from this site can be achieved and that agency is now suggesting appropriate conditions requesting the submission of a full detailed scheme to be submitted prior to commencement of development.

Southern Water - as of mid-February 2004 no capacity check had been requested, and confirming that defined sewers prevail in the area. They state the following:

"... we would like to keep as much surface water out of the sewers as possible. The existing development has its route for other hard surfaced water drainage into the sewer, this should be stopped and would free up capacity for the new development. There are no separate surface water sewers in the area. The surface water from the existing development is not going to the sewer, I expect there is no much spare capacity in the system. There are multiple pipes around the site of the storm overflow. This all indicates a lack of capacity. However, on checking the sewer instants reports, there are none for flooding in the area..."

Southern Water conclude that:

"there seems some uncertainty about the disposal of surface water. We would not want any highway water discharged into the combined sewers. Any suds system is not possible to be adopted by Southern Water, but we would agree this is possibly the best solution if the soil is suitable."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council comment as follows. It was agreed to support this application but the Council wish to point out that this development is on a school route, and that they would like to know how many of the trees on the site were to be retained. Parish Council were very concerned at the number of properties to be built on the site in light of the fact that present sewage and wastewater system is unable to cope with the current level of use.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of 15 letters of objection, 10 from residents of Queens Road and 1 each from residents of Queens Close, Totland Bay, School Green Road, Moor Lane and Colwell Common Road. Points raised are summarised as follows.

Proposal represents excessive density.

Development out of character with prevailing pattern of development in the area.

Proposal indicates insufficient parking.

Concern expressed, particularly by neighbouring properties, at the excessive height and mass and close proximity of the flat blocks which front Queens Road and School Green Road, with view being that they will have an over-dominant impact on adjacent properties.

Concern that the flat blocks, with particular reference to block on the Queens Road frontage, will contain overlooking windows in respect to adjoining properties, with particular reference to the property Brooklands.

Concern that foundation work will affect the integrity of the existing landscaping in the adjacent garden.

Adjoining property owner on Queens Road frontage is not convinced that the proposed boundary wall treatments will provide sufficient privacy and protection.

Proposal will result in loss of existing trees and hedges.

Scheme has a lack of garden areas.

Concern at loss of security generally caused by the large areas of parking and the through pedestrian route between Brookside Road and School Green Road.

Proposal shows inadequate waste storage facilities which may affect recycling targets.

Proposal does not provide any phasing programme, therefore the level and length of likely disturbance to local residents is unknown.

Suggestion that the proposal should not proceed until an overall brief for the area is prepared and adopted.

Existing hotel building in Brookside Road should be retained as it contributes to the character of the area.

Proposal will create undue pressures on existing local services.

Brookside Road is inadequate to accommodate additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with reference being also made to the use of the local roads as a route to school, pointing out that these roads do not have footpaths.

Development is likely to create a potential for flooding, and that drainage system in the area is inadequate to accept additional discharge from the site.

Concern that the proposal will have the potential to cause structural damage to adjoining properties.

Concern that the clocktower block within the centre of the site is excessive in height.

Application has been the subject of 3 letters of support, one each from resident of Queens Road, Upper Prince's Road and Victoria Road, Freshwater. Supporting views are summarised as follows.

Proposal represents a positive step for the area, noting the mixed range of dwelling types catering for all age groups.

Site is in easy reach of town centre and other facilities.

Proposal will result in a tidying up of the area of land which adjoins the bus stop on Queens Road frontage.

EVALUATION

An assessment of this application will be based on the following elements.

Principle

Members will note that this is an amalgamation of two curtilages, being the entire curtilage of Brookside Forge Hotel and most of the curtilage of the property No. 2 (Roundstone) School Green Road. Members will be aware that such land assembly in encouraged within PPG3 as it enables a more comprehensive approach, thus achieving more efficient use of urban land.

The site is a brownfield urban site within very close proximity to the town centre, and therefore lends itself to the principle of residential development.

Finally, Members are advised that the Brookside Forge Hotel has, following research, a maximum of 9 letting bedrooms and therefore this proposal would not be contrary to the hotel policy which seeks to retain hotels or guesthouses of 10 gettable rooms or more.

Density

Again reference is made to PPG3 which seeks densities of 30-50 units per hectare, and seeks greater intensity of development where sites have convenient access to good public transport such as town centres. The density of the current proposal is 80 units per hectare, which Members may consider appears excessive, but as a high proportion of the development is in the form of flats, this type of density figure is inevitable. The issue will always be whether or not the arrangement of dwellings on the site is acceptable, for efficient use of urban land should not be at the expense of cramped development.

Layout, Access and Parking

Firstly Members are advised that the layout has been the subject of amendment following period of negotiation, with the main result being that the density has been reduced from 39 units to 36 units. I refer to the fact that the site is in 4 main elements, with element 1 being in the area of Brookside Road and being of a more domestic scale of development in a mix of housing and maisonettes not exceeding two storeys in height. The pair of semi-detached houses and detached house on the Brookside Road frontage have been deliberately designed with reasonable space about, and to sit comfortably within the overall pattern of development in Brookside Road. Similarly, with regard to the terrace of 3 units and the pair of maisonettes, all of which relate directly to the new access road and are acceptable in layout terms.

The access arrangement off Brookside Road has been subject of discussion with the Highway Engineer which has resulted in the introduction of traffic calming measures as previously described, and provision of a footbridge. The introduction of traffic calming measures is important for it reduces speeds and therefore enables a visibility splay provision which is within acceptable guidelines. Similarly, with regard to the new access road which has been designed to both be able to serve potential further development on its eastern side, but also is of a carriageway width which is sufficient to serve this level of development, it contains a right-hand curve where the road goes from north-south direction to an east-west direction, which in itself will provide traffic calming. The road has been designed with turning space which also serves the car parking areas and provides space for larger vehicles to turn and service the site, with particular reference to a fire appliance and refuse vehicles.

The remaining development is in the form of 3 flat blocks with a location reflecting the shape of the site. Element 2, situated on the Queens Road frontage, is fairly substantial in footprint terms, and reflects a continuation of the terrace theme of development which is a feature of the eastern side of Queens Road. Again, following negotiations, applicant has indicated direct access onto Queens Road to 5 of the flats within that block, but more significantly there is a potential for further pedestrian access from the rest of the site to be achieved, although the design of the footpath would suggest a discouragement of that access. In any event the applicants have indicated provision of a metre wide footpath to link to the existing footpath on the eastern side of Queens Road.

It is considered that this particular element represents maximum use of this gap, which effectively is a gap between existing built development to the south and the large curtilage of property Brooklands, with particular reference to a significantly large cedar tree, the canopy of which fills just under half of this large curtilage.

Element 3 being the clocktower block, provides only 3 units of accommodation, although has the central bridging unit block which stands three storeys high and allows vehicular access under. Essentially this block stands between a minor car parking area and the major car parking area which stands to the south of the block.

This block provides a visual linkage to a main substantial block of flats on the School Green Road frontage, with that element of the site being almost divorced from the remaining area of the site. The location of that block on the School Green Road frontage has been carefully considered to reduce any impact on the property Brookbank and to take advantage of the wider element of the site by using an L-shape. This block has its own landscaped area to the east and its shape is designed to create a visual impact, particularly when approaching from the southeast up School Green Road.

Members will note the concern of local residents with regard to the under-provision of parking of the initial scheme, however this has resulted in a reduction in density and the revised proposal now indicates 100% provision in terms of 1 parking space per unit plus 2 additional visitors' spaces. I consider that this provision is acceptable, particularly given that the majority of the units provide two bedroomed accommodation, and any purchasers would occupy with the knowledge that there is only 1 parking space available.

The location of the car parking spaces has also been carefully considered to ensure that they are surveyed from the proposed development, particularly the users of those car parking spaces, and effectively form a central element of the application. They have also been purposely split into small groups interspersed by landscape features. This has hopefully produced a car parking provision which is more informal in nature, and providing appropriate surface treatments are applied will contribute to the visual amenities of the development.

Finally in terms of layout the proposal has provided a footpath link through to School Green Road as previously described, which is considered essential to encourage easy access to the town centre and all the retail and business facilities that are available within that centre. I consider it would be unlikely that this would be used by anybody other than residents of the sight, however there are clearly no guarantees.

Design, Mass and Impact

In terms of element 1, being in the area of Brookside Road, the units have been purposely designed to have a cottage theme by use of mainly stone linked to quoins, and more significantly, the units which front Brookside Road have been designed to take account of the corner situation of both plots. I therefore consider the design, mass and scale are suitable in respect of this element of the application.

In regard to element 2 (flats which front Queens Road), these have been designed to reflect the particular topography of this site, with the two storey element being adjacent to the existing terrace of cottages in Queens Road.

There is no doubt that this proposal will impact on the adjoining property, particularly its curtilage, however whether that would be to a degree which would warrant refusal is questionable. I would suggest that the erection of a 1.8 metre wall, along with specific condition requiring the lower half of the first and second floor bedroom windows be glazed in fixed obscure glazing, would be sufficient to address those concerns.

The most prominent element of the proposal relates to the flats on the School Green Road frontage. Following negotiations this has been reduced in height by the loss of one unit, with the block now having a predominant height of three storeys, with a two storey element in its northwestern corner. Also the flat block has been deliberately placed in the western area of the site to reduce any impact on the detached property Brookbank. The L-shape of the unit, along with its general articulation in terms of changes in roof height, should result in a block which will provide good quality visual impact appropriate for this prominent site.

Such a height and mass is entirely compatible with the mainly Victorian buildings opposite the site, most of which have a commercial use on the ground floor with various alternative uses in the upper floors.

Drainage

This issue has to some extent been the main cause of the delay in this application, however the applicants' consulting engineers have now resolved the issue in principle. The capacity limitations of the sewer in Brookside Road have been recognised and therefore surface water drainage from this development will not be discharging into this sewer, thus freeing up capacity for the foul drainage from the development.

Test holes have been taken which indicate that the site is suitable for soakaway drainage, and this could enable most of the surface water drainage to be dealt with through a sustainable urban drainage system, which is strongly encouraged by the Environment Agency and recommended in PPG25, Development and Flood Risk. For Members' information this includes infiltration trenches, water recycling, porous paving and traditional soakaways, and in essence puts surface water back into the ground rather than using pipe systems.

The alternative would be to introduce attenuation systems on site, possibly in the form of underground tanks or oversized storage pipes to ensure that the run-off from the site, before it enters the stream, is no more than it would have been had the site been a greenfield site.

Calculations are currently being prepared to establish which of the above two alternatives would be the better system, or indeed it may be a mixture of the two. Either way I am satisfied that the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the site is capable of being drained without causing flooding and therefore the application can proceed to determination subject to appropriate conditions.

Landscaping

Members will appreciate that this type of development does result in a considerable amount of hardpaving, and whilst acknowledging that the site does have an extensive level of foliage, most of this will be lost as a result of this proposal. Applicants have, however, been encouraged to introduce pockets of landscaping within the parking areas, with particular regard to retaining landscape margins where parking areas abut adjoining properties.

Applicants are aware of the need to ensure that the parking areas are carefully considered in terms of hard and soft landscaping in order to soften their appearance and to contribute to the overall visual appearance of the development. The applicants have introduced the seating and paved area as a community facility for the development, the position of which is central and therefore should contribute to the sense of place and sense of community which is advised in the various design guidelines issued by the Government.

Finally I have already referred to the provision of a landscape open space area on the School Green Road frontage, and this will provide an important area for open space within an otherwise built up street scene.

General

Applicants have indicated the introduction of brick boundary walls where they abut the adjoining properties Brookbank and Brooklands, and these will be conditioned accordingly. I will also seek to condition the retention of the existing boundary wall to the School Green Road frontage element of the site. Applicants have indicated bin stores and cycle parking provision in respect of the flats, and again these can be covered by conditions.

In terms of security issues, the car parking areas have been deliberately designed to be well surveyed from the flats which they serve, however I would suggest, if Members are mindful to approve the application, a condition requiring the submission of a lighting scheme for the car parking areas, with any such scheme ensuring that the areas are adequately lit without causing light spillage problems in respect of adjoining properties.

Financial Contributions

Members will be aware that sites of this level of development should be required to make a contribution towards education and open space where open space is not provided on site. In this regard the level of contribution would be £900 per unit in respect of the education and £290 per unit in respect of open space, with both contributions going towards upgrading education facilities in the area and open space and recreation facilities in the area. Therefore this will be a further factor in respect of the Section 106 Agreement.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report, I am satisfied that the numerous material considerations involved in developments such as this have been carefully considered in a holistic manner. The result is that this proposal will make a significant contribution to provision of housing in Freshwater, with particular reference to provision of affordable housing. The range of units, along with design, mass and scale, are considered appropriate in the revised form and this, coupled with the drainage solution, leads me to the view that the application should be approved.

1 RECOMMENDATION - Approval (revised plans) subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the provision of 8 affordable housing units in line with Council Policy H14, the payment of £32,400 (36 x £900) in respect of contribution to education facilities, and payment of £10,440 (36 x £290) towards upgrading of local open space and recreational facilities.

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: In compliance 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 compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development commences a soft and hard landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify position, species and size of trees and shrubs to be planted along with the phasing and timing of such planting, and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of planting. The scheme shall also include details of the type, colour and texture of any block paving and shall ensure that the parking spaces are clearly marked within the car parking layout. Such hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies has been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the provision of a surface water regulation system. Such details shall indicate where appropriate the location of any surface water attenuation containment proposals and treatment of outflow into the stream on the southern side of Brookside Road, with any such outflow indicating methods of flow restraints. The regulation system for the site must ensure that the run-off from the 1% probability storm is controlled and will restrict the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a greenfield. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the future, and no dwelling shall be occupied until such an agreed surface water regulation system has been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of stormwater drainage is provided for the development and to prevent flooding in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) and Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No surface water drainage shall discharge into the existing combined sewer in Brookside Road. Reason: To prevent flooding in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the position, design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected in respect of Plots 1-8 inclusive. The boundary treatment shall be completed before Plots 1-8 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 in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to occupation of 9-22 inclusive, the area set aside for public seating with fountain and landscaping indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the development in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of the proposed retaining walls along the southern and western boundaries of the flat block 23-36 inclusive. Such details shall include material finishes and boundary heights over. Such retaining walls shall be agreed and thereafter constructed in accordance with those details prior to occupation of these flats. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until details of any lighting to be installed in respect of the car park areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting schemes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of future occupiers and adjoining property owners in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority of the proposed footbridge on the southern side of Brookside Road as indicated on the plan hereby approved. Such details shall include structural details, material finishes, accurate levels and long term maintenance responsibilities. The bridge shall be constructed in accordance with those agreed details prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Prior to occupation of flat Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 33, the lower half of all south facing windows within those flats shall be permanently fixed non-opening, and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Prior to occupation of flats 11, 12, 17, 13, 14 and 19 the lower half of the north facing windows within those flats shall be permanently fixed non-opening and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul water sewage has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling shall be occupied until the agreed foul sewage system has been completed. Reason: To ensure adequate foul water system is in place in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
16	Timing of occupation - J10
17	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) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	Occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved shall not take place until parking spaces serving these units are available for use and such spaces shall be kept available thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
19	Cycle parking provision - K05
20	Provision of turning area - K40
21	Prior to commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating the type and extent of traffic calming measures to be introduced in Brookside Road as indicated on the plans hereby approved, and such traffic calming measures shall be completed in accordance with agreed details prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
22	Prior to occupation of the flat block (Plots 9-19 inclusive) the additional footpath provision across the frontage onto Queens Road as indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be provided in accordance with details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and such footpath shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In order to provide an extension of the footpath on the eastern side of Queens Road in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants requesting the submission of a construction traffic methodology statement ensuring the site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance to local residents and to draw applicants' attention to the need to address the Party Wall Act of 1996.

The applicant be advised to consult with English Nature with a view to obtaining a DEFRA licence in respect of badger activity.

TCP/25521 P/00644/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Osborne

Registration Date: 09/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Island Harbour Limited

Terrace of 7 houses to be used for holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (additional information relating to mooring allocation proposed & within existing marina)(readvertised application)

land north of, Redshank Way, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A relatively straightforward application that has attracted a large amount of objection and went to the 14 October 2003 Development Control Committee. The application was deferred to seek more information regarding the pontoons. This additional information was advertised on the 16 January 2003. The application returned to the Development Control Committee on 2 March 2004 at which time it was deferred to obtain clarification regarding the mooring spaces. This clarification is added to the evaluation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application has taken 11 months to process due to the clarification sought from statutory consultees, level of casework of the Officer and the restructuring of the Development Control Section as well as requesting information form the applicant and readvertising the application.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is currently being developed with drains etc. being laid. Site appears to be spoil from adjoining development to the south which has been built out (41 units of 96). To the west is the attractive waterscape of the marina which becomes informal in its setting as the views move further northwards. To the east is open farmland that slopes up from the site. The site is linked to the existing development to the south by private roadways and paths. Overall the area has a pleasant feel and a clear association with the water.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14525S - 96 yachtsmen holiday cottages and flats, 96 marina berths and 128 parking spaces - approved 18 November 1988. Section 52 Agreement (31 October 1988) restricting amongst others the use to forty two weeks per year and a requirement to keep a boat.

Since that date applications have been made to vary the restrictions but they have been unsuccessful with Members reaffirming their position in January 2001.

An amendment to the above scheme was agreed on 30 January 2001 which changed elevational details and slight revised siting on plots 37 to 43 and 29 to 36 and the rearrangement of a pontoon.

A further amendment to the original scheme was rejected as an amendment as it required a planning application. This proposal is the subject of this report which has now been submitted as a planning application.

Separate enforcement investigations have been authorised for the existing site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks to amend approved scheme (TCP/14525S). The seven units remain on the same footprint. Terrace split in height at 2 units, 2 units and 3 units. Oriel type bays at ground floor and canopies to main entrance door. Brick construction with slate roofs. Some tile hanging. Two storey with accommodation in roof giving three storeys but reading generally as two. Dormer details not clear but are sited on both front and back elevations. Access by paths, car parking off site. Further information regarding the berth holdings of the marina has been submitted.

"With regard to the above development currently under construction and its associated pontoon, we will be allocating nineteen new berths, which include the existing houses 9-20 Redshank Way, currently moored in the commercial berthing area.

Please find enclosed the proposed design for the new 'G' pontoon. specific house by house allocations will follow shortly, and it is anticipated that we will have the new pontoon in place during August of this year."

Moorings are shown to the placed alongside and on a new finger pontoon.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown outside a designated development envelope but within the policy area T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation).

"Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map, will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

(a) they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

(b) they do not detract from the surroundings;

(d) new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."

D1 - Standards of Design

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Developments

TR7 Zone 4 - Car Park (0 to 100% requirement)

C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

G7 - Development on Unstable Land

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Services comment "No action by this department".

Highway Engineer advises that there are no highway implications within this development.

English Nature advise that the application will not have a significant effect (as described under Regulation 48 (3) of the Conservation (Habitats C) Regulations 1994) on the nearby international sites.

Council's Ecology Officer comments that "the site lies close to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation C200. A part of the SINC is vulnerable to increased dredging and pontoons within Island Harbour but I have no comments to make at this stage in relation to the current proposals".

The Environment Agency has no objection but recommends that a condition to flood defence maintenance be placed on the development and to advise the applicants that the river Medina is a statutory main river and works within 8 metres of the top of the bank require their consent.

Southern Water comment that a water supply can be provided for the proposed development as and when required, and with regard to drainage they comment:

"This application appears to be only a substitution of house types which would not increase the load on the sewers. The plan indicates an ' existing treatment plant' on the site. I believe this refers to an adopted pumping station originally constructed to serve the Island Harbour development. Capacity for the complete development should have been allowed for in the design of the pumping station. In 'Sewers for Adoption - 5th Edition' it is recommended that no habitable buildings are located within 15 metres of a pumping station to minimise the risk of odour, noise and nuisance. We interpret this distance as from the perimeter fence. Some of the other buildings shown on the development plan do not comply with this recommendation. I have no record of any sewerage incidents in this area possibly because only the pumping station and associated rising main are the responsibility of Southern Water."

The Council's Contaminated Land Officer comments:

"I have recently reviewed your application for a terrace of seven houses for which I understand outline consent has already been granted some fifteen years ago. I visited the site and observed several thousands of tons of 'earth' on the site of 'Phase 2' of the Island Harbour development. I am concerned that this material might not be sufficiently 'clean' to be used in a residential development with gardens. I would therefore like to see some soil samples analysed for the ICRCL suite of contaminants and for the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and sent to this department to verify the suitability of the material to be used. It would also be helpful to tell us the source(s) of the material that has been deposited there. I enclose a list of laboratories for your convenience."

He later confirms, following the receipt of a contamination report, that the land is suitable for residential development.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There has been a large number of representations on this application (some of which are from the same author) and Members are reminded that the full contents can be viewed at my office.

There has been 43 letters of representation, 10 of which are from the Island Harbour Residents Society Ltd and 7 from one resident.

Letters of objection/comments were concerned with:

1. Ownership and applicant

2. Base plans incorrect

3. Advertisement brochure being incorrect

4. Trees to be planted are not shown

5. Scheme moving away from original consent

6. Violations of rights of original Section 52 Agreement holders and need to consult to any change to Section 52 Agreement

7. Problems with existing drains on site

8. Consequences of new berth spaces

9. Concern with pylon

10. Description of changes was given

11. Buildings at different levels

12. Need to dredge the marina

13. Concern with the level of use of Mill Lane since the first 29 houses were built.

14. Construction traffic and effect on Mill Lane

15. Houses are larger creating more rubbish and parking

16. Gabion wall removes potential for slipway

17. Levelling of ground

18. Health and safety issues

19. 42 week restriction must continue

20. Application may prejudice comprehensive redevelopment of the area

21. Depth of marina is too shallow

22. Removal of hip roof

23. Need for additional car parking spaces

24. Ground stability problem on reclaimed land

25. Filling in the marina with soil

26. Estuary is valuable wild life habitat

27. Reduction of light and view

28. Safety of existing boats

29. Hours of operation

30. History of planning approvals directs this development should be refused

31. Brick samples

32. Disposal of dredging material on nearby land.

33. Lack of bin area.

34. Parking.

35. Objection to holiday use (relationship between Section 52 and Section 106 Agreement).

36. Craft should be in the private marina.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Apart from the dormer windows that this application seeks to provide there is no breach of planning control with regard to the development that has taken place at this site. This development was agreed by the Development Control Committee on 30 January 2001 which amended the original scheme approved under TCP/14525/S in 1989. Therefore this application seeks to amend the scheme approved by the Development Control Committee by adding dormers to the roof.

The original application for 96 yachtsmen's holiday cottages and flats required a boat to be moored in the private marina. The vast majority of the 41 units built are moored in the private marina. This is shown as Pontoon F on the attached plan. However, there are 11 mooring spaces outside the private marina shown under Pontoon B and D, again on attached plan. It is a requirement of this Planning Authority that these 11 spaces should be moved into the private marina. However, there is no pontoon to fulfill this requirement. This application provides a pontoon for these 11 mooring spaces that are not currently in the commercial marina.

Therefore if planning permission is granted the holiday houses can be completed, the pontoon provided (including any necessary dredging) and the 11 spaces can be moved into the private marina. Below I copy the report submitted to the Development Control Committee on 2nd March 2004.

After some toing and froing and the receipt of correct plans the application seeks to amend the original scheme for 96 units (TCP/14525S) in two ways - change of seven terraced houses design and a change in the siting of the associated moorings.

During negotiation the scheme proposed will be for holiday accommodation as opposed to the 42 week restriction that currently exists. (For information the 42 week occupation is not linked to a holiday use).

In essence units themselves have been agreed previously as an amendment to the approved scheme. However, the addition of dormers will effectively make an amendment on an amendment which took the proposal away from the original permission to a degree that a separate planning application was required.

Seven units pick up the overall theme of the existing 41 units being of a similar scale and mass and keeping to the original footprint. The roofs sit as a large addition given a suppressed feel to the accommodation below. Typical of fisherman type cottages. The dormers on each roof oppose this concept being a little large, but overall sitting comfortably. Tile hanging bricks and slate add an acceptable variety without becoming too fussy.

In determining application of this nature the starting point is whether or not in principle the development complies with policy. Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) allocates the site for such a use. In fact it follows close to the original permission that is still extant. That is the remaining 55 units could be built today without recourse to the Local Planning Authority.

I believe that the design, although moving away from the original concept, is acceptable. The development may be a catalyst for completing a scheme that needs to be completed.

The Environment Agency picks up the concern regarding the possible flooding in 2060 if existing defences are not maintained. By an appropriate condition require maintenance then the requirement of policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) can be safeguarded.

On site there appears to have been some self seeding and colonisation by plants. If permission is forthcoming then these can be covered by landscaping condition.

Land stability appears to be superficial in that the concerns relate to fill rather than the whole area moving. I anticipate that this will be a Building Control matter. The edge of the land will be distinguished by a gabion wall rather than sheet piling. This will safeguard the nature conservation interests of the nearby European designated sites (lack of noise) as well as the adjoining SINC. The Ecology Officer has no further comment to make on the effect of this development on those interests. If the overall development progresses northwards then I believe the impacts of the SINC may be greater.

The overall development to the south has worked well and that the majority of car parking is off site (away from housing) with a narrow road restricting this I feel that this concept shall continue. The area is in Zone 4 parking considering there is a requirement of 0 to 100% parking. Holiday makers are unlikely to have more than one car so an additional seven spaces in the existing car park will help to avoid cars cluttering the road network.

The original scheme for 96 units received confirmation from the Highways Department that the private road network was acceptable for the full development. They make no further comment on this application.

Part of the original concept of the scheme was to make this area a holiday area for sailors of yachts/boats and accordingly a restriction was put upon the permission requiring that the mooring space should be provided for each holiday unit. Making a mooring space available per unit will carry this concept forward.

A contamination report has been sought from the Agents and it has recently been confirmed by the Council's Contaminated Land Officer that the area is acceptable for residential development.

Brick samples have been submitted and appear of good quality and akin to other bricks used within the former development.

Since the completion of the original Section 52 Agreement Government advice is to restrict use by conditions rather than legal agreement. In this instance the holiday restriction and moorings do not need to be covered by legal agreement (Section 106).

Although the development ties in with the original development it does not prejudice its further implementation I believe it can stand alone and be granted planning permission in its own right.

Drainage matters are best dealt with at Building Control stage. Southern Water confirm the sewage capacity for the pumping station. Buildings are not set away from the pumps.

There are, as previous, no restrictions on the size of boat to be used and therefore at this stage capital dredging of the marina is not anticipated. MAFF licences may be required if dredging occurs.

It remains my opinion that any third party rights such as easements, agreements and covenants that are made between the interested parties are not overridden or removed by this planning application which is concerned with land use.

Additional information shows the distribution of existing mooring but more importantly this application also includes a new pontoon giving the comfort that Members sought.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that this development will not have a significant impact on the area affecting the visual and residential amenity. The nature conservation interests are safe guarded by condition and the proposal calls for policies containing the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The accommodation provided in the development hereby approved shall be used for holiday purposes only. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The berth/mooring spaces shown on drawing D7 reviewed on 12 January 2004 shall be provided on a pro rata basis before each unit is occupied. That is before unit 1 is occupied a mooring spaces has to be provided in the space shown 1 to 7 on the plan, before unit 2 is occupied 2 spaces have to be provided in the spaces shown 1 to 7 on the plan etc. Reason: To ensure that adequate mooring spaces are provided for the holiday units and to ensure that the development retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The allocated space pursuant to condition 3 shall be for the sole use of the occupants of the holiday units hereby approved when the units hereby approved are in occupation. Reason: To ensure that the development retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	A new area of land adjoining and abutting the existing car park shall be constructed in similar materials and provided for an additional seven spaces before the units hereby approved are first occupied. Reason: To ensure that adequate car parking spaces are provided without the need to park on the private roads and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of a scheme of maintenance for existing flood defences shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority before the last unit hereby approved is occupied. Such a scheme shall be implemented within one year of the last unit being occupied. Reason: To ensure that the land term protection against flooding is protected and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Details of the storage of refuse shall be submitted prior to first occupation for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Details of the dormer window finishes shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority before the development has begun. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No balcony or other raised external amenity area shall be used for the drying or airing of clothes. Reason: To help ensure that the design of the buildings are not compromised by unsightly additions and to comply with Policy D7 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features of archaeological significance. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeological Officer County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works approved pursuant to condition 10 above have been completed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	The mooring spaces currently used in commercial marina for occupiers of 9-20 Redshank Way shall be moved to the pontoon hereby approved within 1 year of this permission being implemented. Reason: to ensure that adequate mooring spaces are provided for the holiday units and to ensure that the development retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25843/A P/00163/04 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes South

Registration Date: 23/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Payton

2 storey extension to form annexed accommodation (revised scheme)

3 Nelson Close, East Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO326QP

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor Mrs M Miller, is unable to deal with this application under delegated procedure as she has an association with the applicants and the intended occupant of the proposed annexe.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 12 weeks and 4 days and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of applications due to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Property is within a small cul-de-sac comprising semi-detached properties to the north, row of 4 terraced houses to the east including a small garage block. Proposed addition would be located on western side of property, in area which forms part of amenity space to dwelling. All properties are constructed in artificial stone under concrete interlocking roof tiles. Cul-de-sac is on the eastern side of Broadsmith Avenue which gradually slopes to the east.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25843 – Refusal of planning permission for end of terrace house – 5 January 2004. Reasons for refusal related to limited width of the site unable to accommodate development of a standard compatible with the prevailing pattern of development and would appear cramped.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks permission for a two storey extension to provide annexed accommodation. Size of the proposal has been reduced slightly in width from that of the previous submission providing a more subservient feature. Two storey extension will now form annexed accommodation, comprising lounge and kitchen on ground floor with bedroom and bathroom on first floor, rather than the previously submitted end of terrace house which was refused. Internal connecting doorway would be provided between main dwelling and annexe. Extension is set back from host property and is of similar design.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

D1 – Standard of Design

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

S6 – All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

H7 – Alterations and Extensions

G4 – General Locational Criteria for New Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

East Cowes Town Council raises no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One e-mail received from local resident raising concerns over the provision for parking.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implication are anticipated.

EVALUATION

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 properties in particular.

The property is set back from the road within a cul-de-sac forming one of pair of semi-detached houses. The omission of windows in the side elevation eliminates any potential overlooking issues. Use of accommodation will be restricted by condition retaining it with the original dwelling. Proposed extension is considered to be of appropriate scale, in keeping with and subservient to the host property.

One objection was received on parking provision stating that it would be exasperated once building works commence. This is not a material consideration. Concerns were also raised on the future parking problems; proposal is sited in zone 3 where policy guidelines state 0 – 75 % of the maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision allowed, however proposal does not reduce the parking currently available on site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal is of appropriate scale, mass and design, in keeping with the host property, and will not detract from the character and amenity of the locality. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have excessive or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties and is considered to satisfy policies D1, D2, S6, H7, G4 and TR7.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Matching materials - S01
3	Retention with original dwelling - G41
4	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 20 APRIL 2004

(a) TCP/7917/E	9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor	Ventnor
(b) TCP/9272/H	Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor	Ventnor
(c) TCP/15171/G	Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane, Merstone	Merstone
(d) E/15645/B	Vectra Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens	St Helens

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)	TCP/7917/E	Unauthorised change to shop front, at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor which is detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.
	Officer: P. Barker	Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of ply wood shuttering from the front of the shop situated at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor and the replacement of the plate glass window.

Background

In December 2003 a report was received in the Planning department to the effect that one of the large plate glass windows in the front elevation of the shop at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor had been missing for some time and had been replaced with ply wood shuttering. It was alleged that this shuttering at the front of the property was detrimental to the visual amenities within the Ventnor Conservation Area.

The Enforcement Officer visited Pier Street and photographed the front of the building and then wrote to the property owner pointing the effect on the Conservation Area.

The owner failed to respond to the letter and he was eventually contacted by the Enforcement Officer in February 2004. He said that the plate glass window broke when workman tried to remove it to gain access to the shop with heavy equipment needed to carry out urgent repair work to stabilise the premises. He went on to say that he has contacted a number of companies with a view to replacing the window but that work entails removing the window next to it to fit in a supporting cill beneath them, and none of the companies who had inspected the property had supplied him with a quote. The Enforcement Officer advised the owner to expedite this matter.

On the 26 March 2004 the Enforcement Officer visited the premises and found that the window has still not been replaced.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To note the contents of the report and accept that the replacement of the plate glass adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining area and as a consequence to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the property owner to remove the ply wood shuttering from the window and replace it with plate glass. Time for compliance 2 months.

2. To take no further action in respect of the ply wood shuttering.

Conclusion

Many people and local businesses have made a great deal of effort in order to make Ventnor a more attractive town. There are a number of sites in Ventnor where the same degree of effort has not been made and I believe that it is entirely appropriate to serve Notices under Section 215 of the T own and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove these eyesores.

Human Rights

Recommendation

To note the contents of the report and accept that the replacement of the plate glass adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining area and as a consequence to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the property owner to remove the ply wood shuttering from the window and replace it with plate glass. Time for compliance 2 months.

(b) TCP/09272/H	Siting of a mobile home, used as a separate living unit, at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor, Isle of Wight
Officer: P Barker	Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised mobile home from the land at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff.

Background

Victoria Lodge is a building of prefabricated construction which suffered subsidence problems some years ago and is uninhabitable. The current owner purchased the derelict building and land in May 2003.

In December 2003 a report was received in the Planning Department to the effect that a mobile home had been sited on land within the curtilage of Victoria Lodge and was being used as a separate living unit. An Enforcement Officer visited the land and found that the current owner was indeed living on site in a mobile home. He stated that he wished to live in the mobile home on a temporary basis during times that he was in the country, and once the effect of the Council drainage works and coastal defence scheme were known he would be applying to convert an existing unoccupied coach house on site to a temporary dwelling as a one-for-one replacement for Victoria Lodge.

The landowner stated that he had been homeless for 8 years and spent much of his time on the road living in vans and wintering abroad in warmer climes. In an effort to abandon his nomadic lifestyle and put down roots, he had made a planning application for the retention of the mobile home as a temporary living unit. The application was subsequently refused under delegated powers.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the mobile home as a separate living unit and removal of the mobile home from the land.

Time for compliance six months from when the Notice takes effect.

2. To take no further action regarding the siting of the mobile home.

Conclusion

This is not a case where a landowner’s house fell down around him thereby forcing him to reside in temporary accommodation. The current landowner purchased the derelict house and land at a knock-down price (knowing fully that the house was uninhabitable) and moved the mobile home on site without first obtaining planning permission.

The Case Officer recommended refusal of the application because the site is outside the defined settlement boundaries within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast, and was detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area and therefore contrary to Policies S1 (concentrated within existing urban areas), S6 (to be of a high standard of design), and Policy H12 (mobile homes and residential caravans), C1 (protection of landscape and character) and C4 (Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Additionally, the Coastal Manager has stated that the area around Victoria Lodge is at high risk from ground instability, evidenced by the destruction of Victoria Lodge. Government Policy is aimed at reducing risks to people and property by restricting development in areas at risk from erosion and landslip.

He also said that the current coastal protection works do not guarantee ground stability in this location which is close to a landslip scarp face; indeed some ongoing movement can be expected in this vicinity, for as part of the planning consent we are not re-grading land at this location for environmental reasons.

It was the Coastal Manager’s opinion that this development would be inappropriate in an area at high risk, and despite the measures proposed by the applicant there would still be an increase in artificially induced ground water.

For the above reasons I think it is appropriate to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile home.

Human Rights

In coming to this conclusion, 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. Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to take enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the landowner, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedom of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the landowner the proposed action is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedom of others. The policy objections stated in respect of the continuing use of the property are those encompassed in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the proposed use could be allowed to continue even with the imposition of conditions. It is also considered that the enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the mobile home as a separate living unit and removal of the mobile home from the land.

Time for compliance six months from when the Notice takes effect.

(c)	TCP/15171/G	Unauthorised work to convert building into private dwelling, Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane, Merstone
	Officer: L Harper	Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether, following the refusal of planning permission, the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring partial demolition, the removal of the external stonewalls, roof and the internal works and reinstating the building to its original condition.

Background

In October 2003 a complaint was received by the Enforcement Section regarding the alleged conversion of a three-storey farm building into a residence at Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane, Merstone. Cheeks Farm is located outside of the village on the eastern side of the lane. The Farm is derelict and apart from the converted mill building comprises a number of ruined animal pens and two dilapidated barn buildings used for miscellaneous storage.

The Area Enforcement Officer visited Cheeks Farm and was informed by the Owner that the building, a disused mill had previously incorporated an element of residential accommodation and was being “repaired”. The owner was informed that based on an initial assessment of the nature of the works being undertaken at the time of the site visit it went beyond what would be considered the repair of a building but was rather the extensive rebuilding and conversion of a farm building to residential use.

A second more detailed site visit was undertaken with the Enforcement Team Leader to establish the precise nature of the development being undertaken. The converted building comprises three storeys with a single storey element on the eastern end. The single storey element is 5.3 metres in length width by 7.6 metres in width. The main three storey building is 7.6 metres in width by 11.9 metres in length. The external works comprised the construction of outer walls on all elevations of the building and the replacement of the entire roof. The internal works comprised the removal of the mill machinery and the reconfiguration of the layout to form on the ground floor a kitchen, dining room and sitting room, with a staircase to connect the second and third floors each containing two bedrooms and bathrooms. All floors and dividing walls were new. It did appear that the internal block wall was largely original. The single storey element was all new construction.

During a subsequent meeting with the Owner at the Planning Offices he was informed of the concerns of the Local Planning Authority and the procedural steps that could be taken to rectify the breach of planning control. The Owner stated that he intended to submit a retrospective planning application to retain the building. He was advised that a retrospective planning application to retain the existing building for permanent residential use would not receive Officer support. Rather, he should examine the feasibility of any development proposal within the context of policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan.

In the north-east corner of the farm are a number of disused animal pens approximately 5.9 metres in width by 15.5 metres in length. The walls of the pens had been raised with the intention of creating what appears to be a number of stable units.

The planning history dates from the early 1970s and reveals a refusal of planning permission for residential development on the site. At the time the description of the site was as a piggery. The reason for refusal was that the proposal was contrary to the provisions of the County Development Plan where most of the land is shown as white land the use of which shall remain for most part undisturbed. Furthermore that it would result in the extension of ribbon development along Merstone Lane and be prejudicial to the amenities and character. A subsequent application for an agricultural worker’s farmhouse was refused in 1974. Applications for light industrial development were refused in 1992 and 1993. In 1995, a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) was granted for the use of the front part of the site only for storage and wholesale distribution of fruit and vegetables. The building the subject of this report lies outside the area covered by the LDC.

A planning application was submitted in December 2003 but was invalidated. A subsequent application was submitted in January 2004 for the continued use of house/mill as private dwelling and was subsequently refused in March 2004. The reason for refusal of planning permission was because the proposal was contrary to policies C17 (a) Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Unitary Development Plan and insufficient information was submitted to show every reasonable attempt made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use of the building.

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies apply

Strategic Policies

S1: New Development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S2 Development will be encouraged on land which has previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield sites)

S4 The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

S5 All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

Detailed Policies

G1 – (Development envelopes)

G2 – (Consolidation outside development envelopes)

G4 – (General locational criteria)

G5 – (Development outside defined settlements)

D1 – (Standards of design)

D2 – (Standards for development within the site)

H9 – (Outside development boundaries)

E8 – (Employment in the countryside)

C15 – (Appropriate Agricultural Diversification)

C16 – (New Dwellings Supporting Agriculture and Forestry)

C17 – (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Dwellings)

C18 – (Agricultural Support Activities)

TR7 – (Highway Considerations for New Development)

Financial Implications

None

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring

the demolition of the single storey element;

the removal of the external stone walls on all elevations of the building;

the removal of the roof (including all rafters);

the removal of the internal dividing walls, the floors and the ceilings.

All materials removed from the site.

Time period for compliance 4 months.

2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the internal block wall to all elevations of the building and the removal of all resultant materials from the site.

Time period for compliance 4 months.

3. To service an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the additional elements built on to the walls of the former pigsty buildings at the rear of the site and the removal of all resultant material from the site.

Time period for compliance 4 months.

4. To note the report and take no further action.

Conclusion.

None of the planning history relating to this site gives any indication that the building in question held any element of residential accommodation which could be relied upon to justify in part the current conversion works.

The conversion of the former agricultural building to a substantial detached three storey structure intended for permanent residential use represents a marked departure from and would conflict with a number of policies within the Unitary Development Plan. In the first instance, the site is located outside the defined settlement of Merstone where new residential development must be justified. In that context, the Owner has failed to demonstrate any justification as to why an exception to policy should be made. Secondly, the scale of the alterations to the building are such that the proposal cannot be considered under the Conversions Policy (C17) which would allow alternative uses to residential to be considered as part of a scheme to reuse and adapt a rural building.

It is for these significant policy reasons that I am of the opinion based on the available information that no planning conditions that the Local Planning Authority could impose would overcome or address the major departure from policy which the retention of the building would represent.

In terms of remedying the breach, I consider that the developer should be required to remove all the additions and alterations to the building.

Whilst this may leave him with just a shell, members should not at this stage allow the retention of any new element as I consider this would send the totally wrong message to anyone with a similar proposal in mind.

It has been suggested that it will not be possible to maintain the inner block skin as the other elements of the building are removed or once it is left as a shell. Accordingly it is proposed to include its removal as a separate part of the Notice in the event that, should an appeal be made, then an Inspector can vary certain elements within the Notice without quashing it in total.

Regarding the alterations to the outbuildings, I also consider these should be the subject of enforcement action as I would not want to encourage the formation of any new building in this location in the absence of a sound justification.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the first Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the continued unauthorised building within the immediate locality has been carefully considered. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council to remedy the breach of planning control and is made in the public interest which is expressed through the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendations

1.      To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring

(a)    the demolition of the single storey element;

(b)     the removal of the external stone walls on all elevations of the building;

(c)     the removal of the roof (including all rafters);

(d)     the removal of the internal dividing walls, the floors and the ceilings;

(e)     with all materials removed from the site.

Time period for compliance 4 months.

2.      To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the internal block wall to all elevations of the building and the removal of all resultant materials from the site.

            Time period for compliance 4 months.

3.         To service an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the additional elements built on to the walls of the former pigsty buildings at the rear of the site and the removal of all resultant material from the site.

            Time period for compliance 4 months.

(d)	E/15645/B	Investigation into whether building and surrounding land in connection with vehicle repairs and storage represents a material change of use. Vectra Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens
	Officer: L Harper	Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether the use of a building and adjoining land together with the sides of the access road in connection with vehicles repairs and storage represents a material change of use and if so whether some form of enforcement action should be authorised requiring the cessation of the use and the removal of the vehicles concerned.

Background

Several complaints were received by the Enforcement Section relating to the storage, scrapping and repair of motor vehicles at the former Vectra Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens. This building is located at the southern end of a range of buildings running on the eastern side of Carpenters Lane which is an unmade track running south from its junction with the main St Helens Road B3330. The lane is a public footpath providing access to the former railway line. The investigation was subsequently expanded to consider the use of the buildings to the north of the Vectra Engineering Building.

The range of buildings has a substantial planning history in connection with the operation of the former St Helens Laundry. Records indicate that planning permission was granted in 1968 to Vectra Engineering for a workshop for car servicing and repairs within the building that was the subject of the first complaint. An Enforcement Officer visited the site and observed that the building was being used in connection with vehicle repairs with the adjoining compound to the building full of vehicles with other associated motor vehicles parked along either side of the lane. As Members will be aware, the laundry has ceased to operate from this site and the northernmost building is now occupied by a welding company, with the middle building occupied by a business trading in second-hand goods.

The building the subject of the first complaint has a specific planning permission for use for car servicing and repairs. I consider that the scale of operations in connection with the laundry meant that that operation fell within Class B2 (General Industrial Use).

The occupier of the vehicle repair workshop did indicate that he would cease the use of the building and vacate the site by December 2003. Whilst a recent site visit has indicated that the Owner has started to reduce the number of vehicles stored on site, the use continues and there is no indication when all the vehicles will be removed.

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered relevant:

Strategic Policies

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

Detailed Policies

C1 – (Protection of the Landscape Character)

C8 – (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration)

C9 – (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation)

C10 – (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation)

D2 – (Standards of Design within the site)

E8 – (Employment in the Countryside)

G1 – (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages)

G4 – (General Locational criteria)

G5 – (Development outside Defined Settlements)

G10 – (Potential conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses)

P1 – (Pollution and Development)

P4 – (Restoration of Derelict Land and Restoration of Eyesores)

TR7 – (Highways Considerations for New Development)

U19 – (Safeguarding of Aquifers and Water Resources )

W7 – (Scrap yards and Vehicle dismantling)

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the land on either side of Carpenters Lane for the storage of motor vehicles and the removal of these vehicles and associated items from the land.

Time period for compliance 3 months.

2. To note the information presented in the report and without prejudice to the final decision to invite the operator of the vehicle repair workshop to submit a planning application to continue using the land on either side of Carpenters Lane for the storage of motor vehicles with any such application to be submitted within twenty-eight days.

3. To note the information presented in the report and to acknowledge that the use of the former Vectra Engineering Building for car servicing and repair, and the use of the adjoining land which forms the compound to that building for the parking and storage of vehicles does not represent a material change of use from when the premises were occupied and operated by Vectra Engineering.

4. To serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the motor vehicles parked alongside Carpenters Lane on the basis that their continued presence is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.

5. To note the information presented in the report relating to the use of the former laundry buildings and accept that no material change of use has occurred.

6. To note the information but to take no further action.

Conclusion

This range of buildings has a history of employment related activities dating back to the use by the laundry and to the 1968 planning permission to Vectra Engineering for a car servicing and repair workshop. On that basis, the primary consideration in determining whether a breach of planning control has taken place is to ascertain if any of the current uses of the buildings represent a material change of use outside the use to which the building have previously been put.

With regards to the former Vectra Engineering Building, the planning permission granted in 1968 authorised an independently operating car servicing and repair workshop. No conditions were imposed limiting the scope of the vehicles. Under those circumstances I do not consider that the continued use of that building by the present occupant or the use of the adjoining compound represents a material change of use. On that basis, no breach of planning control has occurred.

I do not consider, however, that this interpretation can be extended to the use of the land on either side of Carpenters Lane, which continues to be used for the storage of motor vehicles. Whist I accept that a certain amount of use may have occurred in the past I do not interpret that as establishing any formal use. By comparison, given the number of vehicles positioned along the lane, I believe that a material change of use has occurred. I do not consider that such as use would be acceptable, both with regard to the visual impact of the vehicles when viewed from Carpenters Lane, which is also a public footpath, and also because of the potential harm that could arise to the nearby designated Nature Conservation Area from any pollutants.

With regard to the other buildings, it is my view that the former use of the site by the laundry was on a scale that this would have been considered to be a general industrial operation (B2). The use of the northernmost building by the welding company is also considered to be a general industrial use and accordingly no material change of use has taken place. Concerning the middle building which is presently used by a second-hand goods trader, I am advised that he has been on site for approximately 17 years, and potentially could be immune from any enforcement action if this period of time were verified. In any event, whether his present operation is considered to be B2, B1 or B8 the formal consent of the Planning Authority would not be required for it to continue, and accordingly I see no breach of planning control at those premises.

In conclusion, the actions of the Local Planning Authority must in this particular instance be significantly influenced by the former industrial use of the buildings, which must take precedent over the policies of the Unitary Development Plan which would not normally promote employment activity in this locality, nor take account of the poor access of Carpenters Lane to the St Helen’s Road, bearing in mind that the buildings would have attracted a certain level of traffic movements in their former uses. Given the circumstances as outlined above, I find that the only identifiable breach of planning control relates to the use of the land on either side of the lane for the storage of motor vehicles.

In the event that even this interpretation of events is challenged I would invite Members to consider whether they should also authorise Officers to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act on the basis that the vehicles alongside Carpenters Lane adversely affect the amenity to the surrounding area. This would enable Officers to approach the matter utilising two different powers, providing them with an alternative remedy.

Human Rights

In coming to the recommendation to pursue enforcement action consideration have been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the unauthorised use on the immediate area has been carefully considered. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council as expressed through the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan policies.

Recommendations

1.         To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the land on either side of Carpenters Lane for the storage of motor vehicles and the removal of these vehicles and associated items from the land.

            Time period for compliance 3 months.

3.         To note the information presented in the report and to acknowledge that the use of the former Vectra Engineering Building for car servicing and repair, and the use of the adjoining land which forms the compound to that building for the parking and storage of vehicles does not represent a material change of use from when the premises were occupied and operated by Vectra Engineering.

4.         To serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the motor vehicles parked alongside Carpenters Lane on the basis that their continued presence is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.

5.         To note the information presented in the report relating to the use of the former laundry buildings and accept that no material change of use has occurred.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services