PAPER B2

 

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/5077/L

Mr I C Ridges and Miss A P Ridges against refusal of outline for house, Chale Green Stores, Chale Green, Ventnor

 

 

TCP/10563/L

Miss A Bishop against refusal for change of use from hotel and self-contained annexe to dwelling and self-contained annexe at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin

 

 

TCP/18349/S

Indigo Homes Ltd against refusal of demolition of dwelling and construction of a terrace of 4 town houses; 3/6 storey building to form 10 flats, formation of vehicular access at Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes

 

 

TCP/20244/M

St Catherine’s School against refusal for portable building to provide 2 classrooms at St Margaret’s, Grove Road, Ventnor

 

 

TCP/25191/B

Mrs S Hicky against refusal for demolition of farmhouse and the erection of a detached farmhouse, integral garage and vehicular access at Durrants Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield, Newport

 

 

LBC/16062/J

Dr M Patterson against refusal of Listed Building Consent for alterations to form 17 storage units and hoist at 13B Union Road, Ryde

 

 

E/20443/H

Mr F J Colson against Enforcement Notice relating to residential caravans at Hawthorn Manor Farm, Chale Green

 

 

E/20443/H

Mr D Evans against Enforcement Notice, Caravan No. 2 at Hawthorn Manor Farm, Chale Green

 

 

E/26102

Mr F J Colson against Enforcement Notice relating to residential caravans at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green

 

 

E/26102

Mr R S McKinley against Enforcement Notice relating to caravan 1B at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green

 

 

E/26102

Mr D K Greenwood against Enforcement Notice relating to Caravan 2A at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green

 

 

TCP/1813/N

Rybarn Limited against refusal for demolition of building and the construction of a two storey building and two/three storey building to form 14 flats with parking, Clifton Home for the Elderly, Broadway, Totland Bay

 

 

TCP/10386/G

Mr J Gosling against refusal for chalet bungalow and vehicular access, land adjacent 18 Marlborough Close, Ryde

 

 

TCP/6977/L

Mr G Winnard against refusal for demolition of garage/workshop and construction of an attached house, 137 Clarence Road, East Cowes

 

 

2.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

TCP/10563/L

Miss A Bishop against refusal for change of use of hotel and self-contained annexe to dwelling and self-contained annexe at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin.  Hearing to take place on 11 May 2004.

 

 

LBC/21034/H

Dr J A Parsons against refusal of Listed Building Consent for the retention of uPVC windows and doors at West Billingham Farm, Billingham, Shorwell.  Hearing to take place on 7 September 2004.

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/25634

TCP/25522/A

TCP/25640

TCP/25757

Mr & Mrs McLintock, Mr M Smith, Mr & Mrs M Lynskey and Mr & Mrs P Peplow against refusal for rear first floor extension at Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal  – 2 September 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed – 10 March 2004

 

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the extensions on the character and appearance of the existing terrace of cottages.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         Although the design of the development is reasonably sympathetic, there would be some conflict with the overall character and rhythm of the rear of the building.

 

·         On the other hand, the extensions would tend to subdivide and in part replace the long flat roof of the ground floor extension, and this would divert attention from the existing two storey flat roof extension at the end of the terrace.

 

 

·         The extension will provide each dwelling with an additional small bedroom, which would be a welcome addition to the living space of these small cottages.

 

 

·         On balance, the four identical extensions would cause no significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing terrace of cottages.

 

 

·         Special conditions need to be imposed to ensure the development is implemented concurrently.

 

 

(b)

TCP/16072/E

Mr & Mrs Bennett against refusal for rear single storey ground floor extension and extension at first floor level to form alterations and a flat at 14 Victoria Road, Sandown

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 11 June 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 29 March 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing and surrounding buildings.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposal would have a seriously detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property because it would appear overbearing and overdominant in terms of outlook from their property.

 

 

·         The orientation of the buildings and the height and bulk of the first floor extension would lead to a loss of a significant amount of daylight and early morning sunlight to the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

 

 

·         The development would lead to a tunnelling effect on the space between the two buildings and produce a dark and oppressive area to the doorway and windows to the detriment of the reasonable enjoyment by the present occupiers.

 

 

·         The extension would take up a substantial part of the outside amenity space for the property.

 

 

·         Whilst this amenity space is not currently available for the tenants, it is important to have regard to the long term needs of the property, and the extension would prejudice the use of this area for the purpose it was designed.

 

 

·         The development would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and contrary to D1 and H7.

 

·         The character and pattern of the immediate group of properties is defined by their deep rear projection on short parallel plots and is typical of terraced and semi-detached houses of this era.

 

·         The proposed first floor extension would upset this pattern and present an unbalanced and ill-proportioned appearance to the pair of properties, and be detrimental to the group as a whole.

 

·         The proposal would be incompatible with the existing building and its surroundings and contrary to D1, D2 and H7.

 

 

(c)

TCP/14373/G

Mr C Dixson against refusal for a detached house and garage and formation of vehicular access at Tredegar House, 15 Wood Street, Ryde

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 23 June 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 29 March 2004

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the existing building and those of the neighbouring properties, with particular reference to amenity space, overlooking and outlook.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         Tredegar House, although not Listed, is not without character, which adds to the interest of the locality.

 

 

·         The undeveloped garden allows important and imposing views of Tredegar House and Trinity Church.

 

 

·         The 1999 Inspector formed an opinion that the development of this site would obscure attractive views of both buildings, and there is no reason to disagree with this decision.

 

 

·         The proposed dwelling would not enhance the area as it would involve the severance of Tredegar House from its garden and would involve the felling of a semi-mature weeping willow tree which is itself a feature in this part of the Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The removal of the existing stone boundary wall would be detrimental to the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The development would neither protect or enhance the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area and would conflict with S10, H5, B6, G4, D1 and D2.

 

 

·         The proposed development would allow for sufficient amenity space remaining for the residents of Tredegar House.

 

 

·         The distance and arrangement of the two buildings would not cause harm to the living conditions of either set of occupiers and the development would therefore accord with D1 and H5.

 

 

 

(d)

TCP/13942/E

Mrs B Walker against refusal for conversion of double garage to form a dwelling on land rear of 1 Orchardleigh Road, Shanklin

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 10 November 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 1 April 2004

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and those of the proposed development, with particular reference to outlook, privacy and amenity.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character of the area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposed development would be too close to Mews Cottage to ensure the privacy of the occupiers of this property.

 

 

·         There is no scope for any intervening boundary treatment which might mitigate the harm which would result from mutual overlooking.

 

·         There would be additional loss of privacy from the comings and goings of residents and visitors to the dwelling.

 

·         The proposal does not comply with D1 and H5. 

 

·         The present garage use conforms with the character of the area and performs the function of a rear service and car parking area for the properties surrounding it.

 

·         The development would fail to respect the context in which it would be situated and does not therefore meet the objectives of PPG3 and PPG1.

 

·         There would be a harmful effect on the character of the area and the development.

 

 

(e)

TCP/14584/E

Mr & Mrs I Mitchell against refusal for the rebuilding of barn to form dwelling with annexed unit of holiday accommodation.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 7 November 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 2 April 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         Whether the proposed development would detract from the rural character of this area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposal would be contrary to established development plan policy.

 

 

·         The presences of a new dwelling on this site where none exists at present would inevitably detract from the rural character of the area.

 

 

·         If this application were to be approved the Council might well have difficulty in resisting residential development elsewhere in the countryside.

 

 

·         The provision of an additional unit of holiday accommodation suitable for use by disabled people and the improvement of a derelict site are not sufficient argument for granting consent.

 

 

 

(f)

TCP/9787/C

Mr C Spelling against refusal of outline for a dwelling on land between 4 & 6 Ventnor Road, Apse Heath

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 20 August 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 2 April 2004

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         Whether the proposed development would give rise to an increased road safety hazard.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The application shows that an area in front of the proposed dwelling would be used as a shared drive, serving both the existing and proposed new dwelling.

 

 

·         It would be possible to park two cars on this land but there would be no facility to turn a car within the site.

 

 

·         Visibility from the site access is extremely restricted and vehicles would have to manoeuvre to or from the highway in reverse gear.

 

 

·         The additional use of this sub-standard access by the traffic generated by an extra dwelling would increase the road safety hazard to an unacceptable degree.

 

 

·         The proposed development would be contrary to Policy TR7.

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.