REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR
OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
WARNING
The various documents, letters and
other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning
application or other item of business.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that
every application on this report has been considered against a background of
the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the
Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons
for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a
justification for the recommendation.
|
1. |
TCP/04703/K P/00532/03 Broadfields Farm, Park Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317NL |
Cowes |
|
2. |
TCP/09338/X P/00599/03 marshalling area, Ferry Road, East Cowes, PO32 |
East Cowes |
|
3 |
TCP/20544/D P/01732/02 Little Rodgebrook Farm, Whitehouse
Road, Newport, PO304LH |
Newport |
|
4. |
TCP/20953/A P/00795/01 Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight,
PO390EN |
Totland |
|
5. |
TCP/22370/B P/02241/02 east of Winston Close/north of
Grange Avenue existing industrial site south of, Sherbourne Avenue, Ryde, PO33 |
Ryde |
|
6. |
TCP/25444 P/00418/03 land adjacent 13, St. Pauls View
Road, Newport, PO30 |
Newport |
|
7. |
TCP/02852/H P/00486/03 The Copper Kettle, High Street, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345EU |
Seaview |
|
8. |
TCP/15845/A P/00462/03 6 New Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight,
PO360DT |
Brading |
|
9. |
TCP/19203/J P/00364/03 Oasis Interior Landscapes,
Carpenters Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight,
PO360QA |
Brading |
(a) TCP/10524A Land
adjacent 22 Howgate Road BEMBRIDGE
|
1. |
TCP/04703/K P/00532/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle West Registration Date: 19/03/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Elliott Residential development of 3
terraced houses, 4 detached houses & 1 bungalow with garages/car port;
new access road & landscaping (revised scheme) Broadfields Farm, Park Road,
Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317NL |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application is particularly contentious and has
attracted an extensive number of representations and the site has been the
subject of a recent refusal.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Determination of the application has taken nine
weeks to date. Officer work load and
outstanding consultations have meant this is the earliest Committee at which
the proposal could be considered.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Broadfields Farmhouse and its curtilage are
situated to the northwest of the ongoing residential development known as
Osborne Chase (Westbury Homes). Site
has area of 0.49 hectares and is level with fenced boundaries and contains a
number of trees both well established and recently planted, both along its
boundary and within the site.
Immediately abutting north western boundary is
public footpath beyond which is Northwood Cricket Ground being within Northwood
Recreation Park. Abutting south western
boundary in part is area used as a model railway and current garden land which
has recently been the subject of detail approval for seven detached dwellings
accessed off the Westbury Homes development. Adjoining the southern and south eastern boundary is the Osborne
Chase development currently in the course of construction, including the new
road Admirals Way. Also abutting this
boundary is the proposed cycleway/footpath which runs in an east west direction
on the northern side of the Osborne Chase development. Admirals Way is an access road currently in
the course of construction which is open ended terminating at the southern
boundary of the application site.
Abutting the eastern boundary is the recently completed development of
Harbour Way forming part of Osborne Chase, being semi-detached houses with
either attached or detached garages.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In June 2002 outline consent granted for four
detached dwellings with garages accessed off Seaview Road. That consent was granted during the earlier
stages of the Osborne Chase development with Seaview Road being the nearest
adopted highway which gave access. This
consent followed a dismissal on appeal when similar consent was sought for
development without the benefit of access which now exists. Within the appeal decision the Inspector
recognised that the site was of satisfactory size to accommodate four dwellings
but considered that siting of the dwellings would need to be carefully
considered in relation to trees and hedgerows.
Most recent planning history relates to a
similar development to the current proposal of three terraced houses, pair of
semi-detached houses and three detached houses with garages and car ports,
which was refused in February 2003 having been dealt with through the Part 1A
delegated powers procedure. Reasons for
refusal are summarised as follows:
Poor
arrangement of dwellings with particular reference to plots 3, 4 and 5, being
the terrace of three dwellings and its relationship to Broadfields Farmhouse
and adjoining residential development which resulted in an over dominance,
overlooking and loss of privacy.
Insufficient
curtilage in respect of the terrace of three houses giving rise to cramped
appearance, out of character with pattern of development in the area.
Inadequate
information in respect of failure to indicate location of adjoining residential
development where it abuts north eastern and south western boundaries.
Proposal
would have resulted in loss of an existing tree which formed a significant
landscape feature and was thus worthy of retention.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Detailed consent sought for the residential
development of the overall site as itemised as follows:
Three
number two storey detached four bedroomed dwellings.
Three
number two storey three bedroomed terraced dwellings.
One
number two bedroomed single storey dwelling.
One
number three storey detached four bedroomed dwelling (including open gallery at
second floor).
Proposal includes for the retention of
Broadlands Farmhouse which is centrally located within the western half of the
site. Farmhouse building itself is a
mixture of single storey and three storeys with second floor accommodation
within the roof constructed in facing brick under plain tiled roof. It is fairly substantial having had a number
of extensions, mainly to the rear, and has a separate double garage on its
eastern side. It has the appearance of
a traditional farmhouse building.
Three storey detached four bedroomed dwelling
located on the southern side of the farmhouse (plot 1). Rectangular, with the internal layout
indicating a large double garage on the ground floor, lounge at first floor and
to be provided with a mansard roof finished in Welsh slate. Front elevation clad in stonework with brick
work circular arch feature around a circular window. Remaining elevations to be finished in facing brick.
Plots 2, 3 and 4 (three bedroomed terraced
dwellings) to be sited east of farmhouse in the area of the south eastern corner
of the site. Each dwelling to be
provided with an integral garage having living accommodation on the ground
floor and bedroom accommodation at first floor. Block to have an east west aspect, the two end terraced units
have only one first floor bedroom window facing in an easterly direction, the
central unit having two bedroom units facing in that direction. Terraced block to be constructed with front
and rear elevations in facing brick with timber cladding to bays and infill
sections including painted render to upper storey elevations. End elevations in natural stone with
contrasting colour brick quoins to, and including, all corners. Chimney breasts in facing brick with clay
tiled throat coverings. Roof to be clad
in terracotta clay tiles.
The single storey unit (plot 5) to be located to
the east of and opposite to the existing farmhouse adjacent the eastern
boundary with a rear garden depth of six metres. Dwelling to stand within a plot which has an average width of
approximately 21 metres by depth of 17 metres.
Dwelling to be constructed of front elevation comprising of a mixture of
natural stone with infill facing brick between window openings to full
height. Remaining elevations to be
finished in facing brick with feature quoins and decorative soldier courses
under a Welsh slated roof.
Two detached two storey units (plots 6 and 7) to
be provided with integral garage and have living accommodation on ground floor
with bedroom accommodation at first floor.
Both units to be located within the north eastern corner of the
site. One (plot 6) having a west east
aspect and the other (plot 7) having a north south aspect. East facing elevation of plot 6 contains
four number first floor windows, two of which serve bathroom and shower room
with the remaining two serving the master bedroom. Both dwellings to be finished in a mixture of stone with brick
quoins on the front elevation, with remaining elevations to be in the main
finished in facing brick under natural Welsh slated gabled roofs.
Finally, remaining detached two storey dwelling
(plot 8) located in north western corner of the site to the west of the
farmhouse. Dwelling provided with
integral garage with the ground floor providing living accommodation with a
single storey sun lounge towards the rear.
Dwelling has an asymmetric roof which accommodates a gallery
landing. Dwelling is elongated in shape
with elements of stone with brick quoins for both its east and south facing
elevations with remaining elevations to be finished in facing brick, all under
a Welsh slated roof.
All units to be served off an extension of the
existing estate road (Admirals Way) which is a short open ended cul-de-sac road
currently in the course of construction which serves three units plots 195, 196
and 199 of the Osborne Chase development.
A proposed cycle/footpath runs across its cul-de-sac head in an east
west direction. This cul-de-sac
terminates on the southern boundary of the application site. Extension to the cul-de-sac to be finished
in gravel with a turning head centrally located on the site. Application indicates a new masonry wall
with piers and wrought iron entrance gate off the Admirals Way cul-de-sac. Plots 1 to 7 to be served directly off the
new access drive with a further private drive extending into the north western
corner to serve plot 8.
Proposal indicates the retention of most of the
existing trees on the site including the three mature trees within the vicinity
of the existing farmhouse and, more significantly, the existing young ash tree which
abuts the eastern boundary and is located between plots 5 and 6. Proposal also indicates retention of all
perimeter existing trees, both recently planted trees and the more mature
trees. In total proposal will result in
the loss of six trees. Proposal also provides for new planting within the site.
Application indicates foul and surface water
drainage to be connected to the existing drainage systems on the adjacent
Osborne Chase development. Proposal
also indicates the retention of an existing gated entrance on the northern
boundary which is to be retained as part of the farmhouse property and to
remain locked. Finally, the proposal
also indicates the retention of an existing garden store shed located close to
the proposed access abutting the southern boundary which is also to be retained
as part of the farmhouse property.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is not allocated for residential
development but is situated within the Cowes development envelope as defined on
the Unitary Development Plan. The
Osborne Chase development, now partially completed to the south and east, is
zoned residential accessed off Seaview Road to the east and eventually linking
through to Three Gates Road to the south.
Northwood Park is zoned as open space.
The Osborne Chase development forms the residential half of an overall
site which includes employment land also served off Three Gates Road.
Relevant policies are listed below:
G4
- General Locational Criteria.
D1
- Standards of Design.
D2
- Standards for Development Within the Site.
D3
- Landscaping.
H1
- New Development Within Main Island Towns.
H4
- Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.
TR7
- Highway Considerations for New Development.
TR16
- Parking Policies and Guidelines.
U11
- Infrastructure and Services Provision.
National policies are contained within PPG3 -
Housing which focuses on the need to:
Make
better use of previously developed land.
New
housing and residential environments should be well designed.
Provide
wider housing opportunity and choice and better mix in size, type and location
of housing.
Document also emphasises that new housing
development, whatever scale, should not be viewed in isolation but should be
informed by the wider context having regard not just for the immediate
neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer's comments awaited.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cowes Town Council object to the application on
grounds of overdevelopment and lack of amenity space.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Eight letters of objection received, four from
residents of Harbour Way, two from residents of Admirals Way and one from
resident of Seaview Road, and the remaining letter unaddressed. Reasons summarised as follows:
Site
perceived as an area of open space containing landscape which provides wildlife
habitat and as such should remain undeveloped.
General
appearance of development inappropriate, with particular reference to its
impact on the setting of the farmhouse.
Concern
at the excessive height of the dwellings, with particular reference to the
three storey dwelling.
Closeness
of the terraced block to the existing residential dwellings.
Proposal
represents cramped development resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy.
Area
already overdeveloped without this further development taking place.
Traffic
from the proposed development could cause danger to cyclists and children, with
reference to the proposed cycle/footpath previously described.
Proposal
will represent continued disturbance from construction work and vehicles.
Admirals
Way insufficient width to accommodate any additional traffic.
Broadfields
Farmhouse has architectural merit and a formal request of English Heritage has
been made to establish whether or not it is suitable for listing. No decision should be made until this
process has been completed.
Some
objectors consider that Committee should visit the site before determining the
application.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Material considerations are listed below:
Principle
linked to the status of the land.
Appropriateness
of density in respect of efficient use of land.
Appropriateness
of arrangement and design of dwellings.
Environmental
impact both within the development and in particular in respect of adjoining
development.
Additional
traffic implications and the impact on existing road system.
Whilst number of objectors have made reference
to the open space and landscape quality of this area of land it is not
allocated as open space and simply forms the remaining curtilage of Broadfields
Farmhouse. In terms of open space, site
immediately abuts a major recreational facility Northwood Recreation Park and
as such the area is well served for open space. Principle of development has already been established on this
site by past approval and the development of the site was always considered a
distinct possibility. It was for this
reason that Admirals Way was designed to be open ended terminating at the
southern boundary of the site in order to serve any future development. Therefore, the site's future development is
inevitable and any resistance to principle of development would be
unsustainable on appeal.
Next issue is the appropriateness of the number
of units, i.e. the density of development being proposed. Previous consent related to four additional
units including retention of the farmhouse.
This proposal effectively doubles that density resulting in a total of
eight units plus the farmhouse. One of
the prime aims of PPG3 is to ensure efficient use of urban land to take the
pressures off greenfield sites but not at the expense of cramped development. In density terms nine units on this site
represents approximately 18.5 units per hectare which is considerably less than
the recommended minimum density figure of 30 units per hectare contained in
PPG3 - Housing. Given these facts I
consider it would be difficult to sustain as a reason for refusal
overdevelopment of the site. For
information, the density of the surrounding development is 34 units per
hectare.
Next issue is to consider the arrangement of the
dwellings within the site and the appropriateness of the design and
appearance. Developers have been
encouraged to consider this site in isolation from the adjoining Osborne Chase
development given its relationship with the farmhouse. In this regard a more informal approach was
considered as being appropriate in an attempt to create a "farmyard
complex" using the farmhouse as the central building around which rurally
designed dwellings are arranged.
Applicants have paid particular regard to material finishes which
Members will note is of good quality, using stone, timber cladding and render
under natural slated roofs of varying shapes.
These differ radically from the standardised residential units on the
Osborne Chase development. Applicants
have purposely introduced a gated entrance to give this development a sense of
place. Whilst I recognise that local
residents may not necessarily agree that such an aim has been achieved, I
consider in general terms the approach is the correct one. Site is surrounded in close boarded fencing
and does generate its own character separate from the adjoining residential
development.
Greatest concern to neighbouring property owners
is the environmental impact this proposal may have on their properties. From the previous refusal Members will note
that particular issues caused concern in respect of that layout and obviously
the test is whether or not this proposal has addressed those reasons,
particularly the first two. In this
regard, applicants have relocated the terrace of three units to be slightly
further away from the eastern boundary and introduced a single storey dwelling
where it stands opposite the farmhouse and backs onto neighbouring
property. They have also carefully
considered the first floor windows which have been reduced to the minimum where
they face in an easterly direction. All
first floor windows facing this direction are either bedroom windows or
bathroom/shower windows and as such could not be deemed to create a major
overlooking problem. I would agree that
the properties are close together but no closer than other properties within
the Osborne Chase development, and in this regard Members' attention is drawn
to a recent appeal which was allowed in East Cowes within which the Inspector
made the following statement:
"One
consequence of the PPG3 aim to encourage more efficient use of urban land is
that dwellings often will occupy much smaller plots that those commonly
provided in earlier decades."
From the above, whilst recognising the
comparative smallness of the plots, I do not consider that they are excessively
small and result in a cramped appearance.
One writer considers that Admirals Way has
insufficient width to accommodate additional traffic. The fact that Admirals Way was deliberately left open ended to
serve this land suggests that this is not the case. The width of the carriageway suggests that it is more than
capable of accepting additional traffic with that width being able to deal with
anything from 25 - 50 dwellings. These
additional nine units off Admirals Way, when linking to the existing
development on Admirals Way, will result in a total of 15 units being served
off this cul-de-sac.
The access drive itself is clearly to be
unadopted and because of its general surface treatment, i.e. gravel, and type
of layout particularly with regard to the gated entrance, provides a high
element of traffic calming and whilst accepting that the traffic will need to
cross the proposed cycle track/footpath that the level and speed of traffic
will be low, particularly when compared with other examples of this occurring
within the adjoining estate. In any
event, recent consent has been granted for a similar circumstance to occur on
land to the west of the application site and it would be inconsistent to refuse
the application on that basis.
With regard to the issue of
"listability" of Broadfields Farmhouse, when the previous application
was refused the Council's Conservation Officer stated the following:
"The
existing houses a two storey early 19th Century building having accommodation
in the roof space and a single storey annex built only marginally later than
the main house, all constructed of brick under tiled roof. The elevation to the north is fairly intact
with original sliding sash windows and simple canopied central door with both
chimneys intact. However, the south
elevation has been added to recently with the addition of a large conservatory,
upvc french doors and many minor alterations and additions to windows and other
features which collectively add together to diminish the architectural value of
the building considerably. I am of the
opinion that so much alteration has taken place that the building now does not
have the necessary quality to be considered for listing. There is no doubt that many of the recent
alterations could be removed and restored, however, even after such work the
building would still be questionable as to whether it is of the high quality
demanded for listing."
Given this
opinion, I certainly would not consider it appropriate to place a Building
Preservation Notice on the building and whilst I await with interest the
response of English Heritage I would not consider it appropriate to delay
determining this application given the above information and advice.
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
application 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 on the rights
and freedom of the applicant. It is
also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in
the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in this report, whilst recognising
the number and nature of the concerns being expressed by the recent occupiers
of adjoining development this site represents an ideal site for additional
residential development, a fact confirmed by the planning history of the site
and the steps taken in respect of the layout of the adjoining site to ensure
access to the site. Therefore, for the
reasons given in the Evaluation section of this report I consider that the
layout is acceptable and therefore I recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Construction
of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed
schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing
and walls with any such finishes complying with the specification indicated
for each of the individual dwellings.
Such schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and 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 Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification) no additional east facing first floor windows other than those
expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed within dwellings
on plots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Reason: In
the interests and the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance
with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
No
development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all
existing boundary trees, both mature and recently planted trees, shall have
been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed
in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m
minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted
on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the
ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on
scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective
barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the
course of the works on the site, during which period the following
restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or
chemicals. (c) No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of bonfires. (e) No physical damage to bark or branches. (f) No changes to natural ground drainage in
the area. (g) No changes in ground levels. (h) No digging of trenches for services,
drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required in close proximity
shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason:
To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are
adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the
construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12
(Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
In this
condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in
accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and
(b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of
the occupation of the building for its permitted use. (a)No
retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained
tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and
particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority. Any topping or lopping
approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree
Work); (b)If any
retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree
shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall
be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be
specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting
Trees and Woodland) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
7 |
Before the
development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of
other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of
trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall
include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date
of planting. Reason: To ensure
that the appearance of the development is
satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No
development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design,
materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed
before the dwellings 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. |
|
9 |
Before the
development hereby permitted is commenced full details of the width (minimum
4.1 metres), alignment, gradient, drainage and surface treatment which shall
include provision of kerbing and a designed rumble strip at the entrance
point off the adjacent residential development shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings
in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No
dwellings shall be occupied until that part of the service road which
provides access to it has been constructed in accordance with the approved
plans. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway
and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Prior to
the commencement of work details shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority of the proposed new masonry wall with piers and
wrought iron entrance gate on the southern boundary and any such wall shall
be constructed in accordance with such approved details prior to completion
of the development. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2. |
TCP/09338/X P/00599/03 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes North Registration Date: 01/04/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: T J Docherty Esq Variation of condition no. 1 on
TCP/3474P & condition no. 2 on TCP/9338T to allow parking of HGV's for a
temporary period until the trailer park at Osborne Works is fully functional marshalling area, Ferry Road, East
Cowes, PO32 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This application raises a number of particularly
significant issues and has attracted a number of representations.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken
seven weeks to date.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site relates to marshalling yard surrounded by
Castle Street, Link Road and Ferry Road with entrance gained to site via latter
highway. The site is used for ferry
traffic, parking and/or involves traffic crossing Castle Street into Trinity
car park to await ferry embarkation. Northern most corner of site previously
contained The Star Public House which was demolished to enlarge car parking
area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning history of this site is somewhat
complex and relevant planning decisions made are summarised below:
Members may
recall that further report was considered at the meeting held on 23 April
2002. Report again outlined planning
history of site, its current use and was presented in order to allow Members to
consider an appropriate response given current operation of yard. Report concluded that whilst yard was being
used for lorry parking, given likelihood of application in near future it was
suggested to Members that they may take the view that it would be more
appropriate to allow further period of time in which to submit a planning
application for lorry/trailer park in alternative location which may assist in
rectifying/clarifying use of Phoenix car park itself.
Members
resolved to take no immediate action regarding investigation into alleged
breaches of planning control on the understanding the operator would submit a
planning application for an alternative siting of the lorry/trailer park within
two months. Should that application not
be received in that timeframe then enforcement action was authorised commensurate
with the alleged breach.
In respect
of alternative facility Members may recall that the application seeking to use
land southeast of Osborne Works, Whippingham Road as commercial trailer park
was approved in November 2002. This
consent was for a limited period of one year and contained additional
conditions requiring visibility, boundary treatment, restrictions on use and
restriction on time of vehicle movements which allowed site to be used only
between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours Mondays to Saturdays.
Application
currently under consideration for variation of condition to allow operation of
site on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
With regards
the application seeking 'village green' status on land adjoining Osborne Works,
Whippingham, this matter was heard at the Regulatory Appeals Committee on 11
April 2003. Consideration of the
application was adjourned as the applicant could not attend the meeting and to
allow the landowner an opportunity to submit additional evidence. No date is yet scheduled for
reconsideration.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
This
application seeks variation (removal) of restrictive conditions on earlier
consent which allow parking of HGVs across lanes 3 - 10 inclusive which is
majority of site which comprises twelve lanes in total. Application made on the basis that site will
operate at times to suit operational requirements and such a variation is
required on a temporary basis until such time as Osborne Works site is fully
functional as a trailer park.
In support
of application attached as appendix is letter received from Red Funnel
outlining background to this submission.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Majority of
site not allocated for any specific purpose in the Unitary Development Plan
although southern corner of site fronting Ferry Road which previously contained
nos. 9 and 10 Ferry Road is shown as being included within town centre
boundary.
The
following policies of adopted Development Plan are considered relevant in this
case:
G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages)
G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development)
G10
(Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses)
TR7
(Highway Considerations for New Development)
TR9
(Encouragement of Provision of Improved Transport Facilities)
TR10
(Cross Solent Ferry Links)
Policy TR11
states that Council will approve appropriate land use proposals or traffic
management schemes which will help address traffic and marshalling problems
associated with Island's cross-Solent ferry terminals subject to scheme
remaining in keeping with surroundings, is appropriate in scale and operation
for the location proposed and will not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse
environmental impact on wider area in general.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
The comments
of Highway Engineer not received at time of preparing report.
The
Environment Agency do not object but bring to the attention of the applicants
the flood risk in this area and the need to control spillages etc.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
None
received at time of preparing report.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Eight
letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on
following grounds:
Inappropriate
hours of operation causing disturbance, particularly to sleep patterns.
Associated
noise and vibrations caused by operation.
Operation
of site involving shunting of trailers and use of freezer units detrimental to
local residents who suffer sleep deprivation.
Disregard
of current operation in respect of current planning restrictions.
Unlikely
to be temporary consent given that alternative trailer park location is subject
to village green application.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
The relevant
Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received.
EVALUATION
Main
planning considerations relate to relevant UDP policy and implications for such
policy in terms of impact on amenities of residential occupiers adjacent to the
site.
UDP policies
do, in general, seek to encourage infrastructure improvements in terms of
cross-Solent ferry links and associated traffic management schemes, however,
criteria contained within such policy seeks to ensure no adverse impact on
local environment and compatibility with existing and nearby land uses. Policy G10 reinforces need to take into
account potential for conflict between existing adjoining or surrounding
development and activities.
An analysis
of previous decisions on this site indicate approach of Local Planning
Authority in attempting to accommodate wishes of major commercial cross-Solent
operator whilst affording some protection to amenities of surrounding
businesses and residential occupiers.
It is
considered that Members have several possible options in terms of determining
this application and, if necessary, taking any subsequent action.
Notwithstanding
difference of opinion in respect of fall-back position, Enforcement Team Leader
has written to operating company advising that given the planning consents
issued on this site, the whole of the Phoenix Yard marshalling area as
currently existing has an authorised use for the marshalling of motor vehicles
and that only a limited part of the site can be used by HGV vehicles (on land
directly behind site of former public house).
Furthermore, the use of the site by HGVs is limited through time (08:00
hours to 21:00 hours) and there is also the proviso that they must exit the
site onto Link Road.
On the basis
that the current application seeks to use the majority of the site on an
unrestricted basis for the parking of HGVs such a proposal is considered to
conflict with policies which seek to protect amenities of surrounding land
users and occupiers. Application seeks
to use considerable area of available car park and given type of operation
involving manoeuvring transporter units, often with refrigerated units aboard
operating on an unrestricted basis, has potential for considerable detrimental
impact on amenities on neighbouring and nearby owner/occupiers.
It should
also be noted that whilst application is made on a temporary basis until such
time as alternative HGV/trailer parking facilities are available in view of
outstanding legal issue, i.e. application for village green status on this
land, it is by no means certain that alternative option is likely to
materialise.
In
conclusion it is considered that whilst use of area for motor vehicle parking
operates at acceptable and appropriate level, use of majority of site for
commercial vehicle parking and its attendant side effects has potential to
adversely impact on neighbouring and nearby owner/occupiers by reason of noise,
general disturbance and hours of operation to be sufficiently serious to
warrant refusal of this application.
Given such a view it is not considered appropriate to grant any form of temporary
consent.
Considering
present use of site and retrospective nature of application Members will also
have to consider what action they wish to take in respect of current breaches
of planning control as any such action was temporarily held in abeyance
following report to Members in April 2002.
Members previously resolved to take no immediate action based on the
understanding that application would be submitted in near future which would
provide opportunity to remove problem from site. However, as previously outlined there is some doubt as to
likelihood of such alternative location being brought into use. Given this situation and whilst Local
Planning Authority has taken flexible approach in seeking to resolve this
matter, given planning objections to current operational situation and doubt
over any relocation it is considered that the point has been reached whereby
formal enforcement action is necessary to resolve the problem. This could take the form of either a formal
Breach of Condition Notice or Enforcement Notice, the latter procedure offering
a right of appeal.
If Members decide to embark on this course of action due regard has to be given to the wider implications of attempting to effectively scale down this important commercial operation and the repercussions that may have on the local economy thereby affecting the whole community, as opposed, to the residents living in the vicinity of Phoenix Yard who are suffering and will be likely to continue to suffer, if the application were (conditionally) approved a significant loss of amenity particularly during unsocial hours throughout the night. Consequently, it is my view, that Members should be aware of the gravity of the recommendation and the significant implications of taking enforcement action in respect of the current breaches of planning control on the site.
Some Members may be aware there has been a recent public meeting to discuss this application and the wider issues arising from the day-to-day operation of this site as a major ferry terminal. The meeting was attended by representatives of Red Funnel/Vectis Transport, the two local Ward Members, local Town Councillors, local residents and the Development Control Manager. It is my view that the applicants recognise their responsibilities in terms of the operation of this particular site and that local residents are determined to see some kind of operational control over the use, maintaining the view that their interests are not best served by the removal of present planning controls even though it is accepted that the present operational pattern is already in breach of planning conditions. The consensus view was that it will be beneficial to all concerned if there was a regular forum which would enable the applicants to draw attention to any changes to operational practices on the site and for locally elected representatives and local residents to voice their concerns and highlight any particular problems.
In
conclusion, it is my view that the only appropriate recommendation in terms of
the application, as presented, is to refuse permission and consequently,
bearing in mind the decision taken last year to suspend any enforcement action
while possible alternatives were investigated/developed, the Council, in my
view, is obliged to exercise its discretionary enforcement power to formally
eradicate the identified breaches which have a detrimental effect on
neighbouring and nearby residential owner/occupiers. However, in light of recent developments and the apparent
willingness of the respective parties to resolve these difficulties it is
recommended that Members consider supporting the
establishment of a local forum which would include local Members and other
members of this Council with a role in planning/transportation issues. If Members were to accept this part of the
overall recommendation it is strongly suggested that a meeting of this forum
should take place at the earliest possible opportunity. However, if Members also accept the third
part of the recommendation to take enforcement action it is not considered that
the establishment and meeting of the forum should delay any preparatory
administrative work prior to the service of the relevant notice.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to
this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given
to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the
First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given
due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this
report I am firmly of the opinion that the continued use of the majority of
this site for parking and marshalling of commercial freight vehicles results in
serious harm to adjoining owner/occupiers representing a serious planning
objection to proposal. I do not consider
therefore that application can be supported and is contrary to policies
contained within the Unitary Development Plan and application is accordingly
recommended for refusal.
1. RECOMMENDATION -
REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The use of
part of the site as proposed for the unrestricted marshalling of commercial
freight vehicles results in a significant loss of amenity detrimental to the
occupiers/operators of adjoining properties particularly by reason of noise,
general disturbance and operational hours and is therefore contrary to
policies D1, G10 and TR11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
That a local forum be established with a view to all interested parties meeting at the earliest opportunity with the objective of overcoming the present difficulties on a proactive basis by agreeing changes to operational practice which may in itself involve the submission of a further planning application(s).
3. RECOMMENDATION
Notwithstanding the establishment of
a local forum (see Recommendation 2) that enforcement action be taken in
respect of the breaches of planning condition/control whereby the use of
Phoenix Yard should be restricted to the parking and marshalling of private
motor vehicles except where approved conditionally under TCP3474P allowing a
period of one month for compliance.
That legal advice be taken on the most appropriate method of pursuing
the matter and whether it should be the subject of a Breach of Condition Notice
or an Enforcement Notice; Members will
be aware that the applicants would have a right of appeal in respect of the
latter.
|
3. |
TCP/20544/D P/01732/02 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West Registration Date: 03/10/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Booth Change of use of land and
buildings for equestrian business; alterations & extension to existing
buildings for stables & storage; manege; outline for dwelling Little Rodgebrook Farm, Whitehouse
Road, Newport, PO304LH |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The proposal includes provision of residential
accommodation outside the defined development boundaries on the Unitary
Development Plan as an exception to the general policies which seek to resist
further residential development in the countryside and, consequently, the
application raises issues to be resolved.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken
33 weeks to date. The processing of
this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to the relative
complexity of the proposal and the need to carry out external consultations and
scrutinise thoroughly the arguments put forward to justify the provision of
residential accommodation within the countryside.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to area of land totalling
approximately 4.6 hectares (11.5 acres) located on western side of and accessed
over unmade track off Whitehouse Road.
Site is relatively level with natural growth to boundaries and small
group of agricultural buildings located close to eastern boundary of site. Site is located well outside defined
settlement in area which is rural in character.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/20544/M/8439 - Outline planning permission
for agricultural worker's dwelling refused in June 1990 on grounds that the
Local Planning Authority was not satisfied that there was sufficient
justification to make an exception to policies which would resist further
development in the countryside and that proposal would comprise an undesirable
incursion prejudicial to the rural character of the area.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Full planning permission is sought for use of
land and buildings in connection with equestrian business, including
alterations and extension to the buildings to form stables and storage together
with the formation of manege. In
addition, outline planning permission is sought for a dwelling to be occupied
in connection with the business operated from the site.
The existing barn within the site is roughly
L-shaped having overall length of approximately 32 metres and maximum depth of
approximately 12.7 metres. Proposal
involves extension to barn involving relatively small increase in floor area,
infilling corner of building and increasing length by approximately 3.5
metres. Alterations to exterior of
building involve replacing existing corrugated iron cladding with corrugated
metal cladding in dark green or grey and/or Yorkshire boarding. Resultant building would provide 15 stables
and storage area. Proposed manege with
length of 30 metres and width of 50 metres would be formed immediately adjacent
and to north of buildings. Proposed
dwelling would be located adjacent eastern boundary of site.
Applicant presently operates his business from
Great Pan Farm, Pan Lane, Newport and is seeking to relocate the business to
Little Rodgebrook Farm. Application was
accompanied by information in support of proposal, including a business plan, a
copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix, accounts of the
business and a letter from a veterinary group who confirm that the applicant
has been a client of theirs for over 15 years.
The veterinary practice acknowledge that the existing premises require
major refurbishment and advise that for any operation which involves the
breeding of horses it is essential that there is accommodation adjacent the
facility. In particular, they advise
that breeding horses attracts major problems and in the majority of cases these
problems occur at very unsociable hours and, therefore, it is essential that
personnel are on hand to assist with any difficulties that mares or foals may
encounter. They consider that failure
to be on immediate standby can often cause unnecessary suffering, premature
deaths and for any business operation financial ruin.
Following further discussions with the applicant
regarding need to live on site, further letter has been submitted providing
information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to this report
as an appendix. Applicant has also
submitted photographs of existing premises and has explained both in the letter
and in his business plan that due to limited size of premises and changes which
have occurred around the site, need has arisen to relocate to a rural location
where the business can expand.
Applicant has also submitted 24 letters in support of his proposal
including two from official organisations, the British Horse Society and Vectis
Riding Club, six from stud owners and breeders, three from farmers diversifying
and thirteen from private horse owners and breeders, many of whom have used and
continue to use his services. A copy of
the letter from the British Horse Society is attached to this report as an
appendix. Issues raised in the other
letters can be summarised as follows:
Operation
of livery and care for horses requires 24 hour supervision.
Safe
and effective training of horses requires 24 hour supervision.
Provision
of residential accommodation provides increased security.
Applicant
is competent and experienced trainer.
Relocation
of business would provide greater turnout area for horses.
Several of the private horse owners and breeders
indicate that the applicant's ability to provide 24 hour on-site supervision is
a factor influencing their decision to use his services.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Application site is located outside settlements
defined by the development boundaries on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are
considered to be as follows:
S1
- New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S4
- The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
G1
- Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4
- General Locational Criteria for Development.
G5
- Development Outside Defined Settlements.
D1
- Standards of Design.
H9
- Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.
C1
- Protection of Landscape Character.
C24
- Commercial Riding Establishments.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer considers there to be no
highway implications.
Environmental Health Officer recommends
conditions should application be approved.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from owner of adjacent property
who considers that proposal involves sound and unobtrusive business use of the
site involving significant improvement to the construction and appearance of
the existing buildings and therefore wishes to support the application. Resident highlights difficulties which have
been created by sub-division of Rodgebrook Farm and considers that an
economically sound proposal as submitted would return stability and
responsibility to the area.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering application
are whether use of land and buildings for an equestrian business is acceptable
in general or would detract from the rural character of the area and whether
the provision of a dwelling on the land is considered essential to the
equestrian operation and may be permitted as an exception to the general
policies which seek to resist further residential development outside of
defined settlements.
Policy C24 - (Commercial Riding Establishments)
of the Unitary Development Plan is considered particularly relevant to the
current proposal. In accordance with
the policy planning applications for new commercial riding establishments and
extensions to existing premises will be approved where they comply with the
criteria set out in the policy, including where they involve the reuse of an
existing farm complex or group of farm buildings and minimise any impact on
adjoining residential occupiers. The
explanatory text to the policy makes particular reference to the visual impact
of such proposals and highlights that, being a popular recreational activity in
the countryside, there is the potential for detrimental impact to adjoining
residential occupiers and conflict with other road users. It is therefore considered that the scale of
the proposal will need to address both of these issues, as well as minimising
impact on the landscape and nature conservation interests.
In this instance, the proposal involves
relatively minor extension to the existing building and it is considered that
the overall alterations to the structure will result in an improvement in its
appearance. I consider that the
proposed use is one which is associated with the rural economy and I am satisfied
that it requires a rural location. Therefore, I consider that proposal represents an acceptable use
of this site and does not conflict with the policies of the Unitary Development
Plan.
It is considered that the more contentious
element of this application relates to the provision of a dwelling to be
occupied in connection with the operation of the equestrian business from the
site. Site is well outside any defined
settlement in an area where further development will generally be resisted
unless it falls within a category which may exceptionally be permitted in
accordance with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan. In this respect, Policy H9 of the Plan
specifies circumstances where residential development may be permitted outside development
boundaries including, for example, an essential dwelling for an agricultural
unit of appropriate size for the farming operation, where a functional need is
proven. Whilst current proposal does
not involve an agricultural enterprise, I consider that it requires a
countryside location and therefore provision of a dwelling should be considered
against similar criteria to those which would apply to an agricultural worker's
dwelling. Therefore, consultations have
been carried out with a consultant in order to ascertain whether, in this instance,
there is considered to be a justification for the provision of a dwelling in
connection with the equestrian business to be operated from the site.
In general terms, where an applicant is seeking
to establish a new enterprise and requires residential accommodation in this
respect, it would be normal procedure to consider provision of temporary
accommodation initially until such time as the applicant had demonstrated that
a viable business had been established.
In this instance, proposal involves relocation of a long established
business and I do not therefore consider it unreasonable for the applicant to
request provision of permanent accommodation from the outset. However, the consultant who was approached to
comment on this proposal was asked to consider whether relocation of the
business would have any impact on its viability. In addition, the consultant's report addresses the functional
need to live on site to care for the horses.
The business plan which accompanies the
application indicates that the nature of the business is breaking, training,
selling and breeding young horses and instruction for people on their own
horses. It is understood that the
business is now running to capacity and having to refuse trade because of lack
of stables and space at the applicant's present premises which has ten stables
and a small sand school with no grazing land.
In addition, it is suggested in the business plan that the proposal to
build a new road from St Georges Way and extension of the Pan Estate will make
the business virtually impossible with no room to expand within the farm and
surroundings closing in, becoming more built-up, noisy and dangerous to house
young horses.
In contrast, the business plan suggests that
Little Rodgebrook Farm is in a rural yet accessible area with 11.5 acres of
grazing land and existing barns that will convert or could be replaced to
provide ample stabling, plenty of room to build a larger sand school for use of
training and schooling the horses and room for the building of a residence for
the proprietors and their family, all of which is needed to ensure the business
runs smoothly and thrives. The business
at its current location provides full-time employment for both Mr and Mrs Booth
(the applicants) and part-time employment for a groom and stable hand. The business plan suggests that relocation
and expansion of the business may result in demand for additional staff
including a full-time worker, possibly a trainee.
The consultant's assessment of the viability of
the business was based on the figures provided by the applicant. These figures do not include income and
expenditure associated with the applicant's riding instruction fees which
generally take place away from the applicant's premises. The consultant concludes that the business
operation at the current premises is profitable and that relocation of the
business to Little Rodgebrook Farm, with an increase in the number of stables
and land available, could potentially generate an increase in profits. Therefore, he does not consider that the
relocation of the business would threaten the viability of the business and
indicates that if horse numbers can be increased, the profitability may well be
enhanced.
In determining whether there is a need to
provide residential accommodation on site, the consultant has broken the
business down into its various activities and considered the need against each
element. He suggests that it is the
livery/horse breeding activities which generate the need to live on site and
that there is no such need in connection with the riding instruction
activities. He comments that the horse
breeding activities form a variable and, on average, less significant part of
the overall turnover of the business.
Furthermore, he acknowledges that the need to live on site as part of
the business relocation is, on the basis of animal welfare, strengthened by the
presence of horse breeding activity and while it is clearly desirable to be
present on site for horse livery purposes, it is possible to cite examples
where horses are kept at livery without 24 hour supervision. By contrast, horse breeding activities,
especially when dealing with pregnant mares and foaling events, require
intensive supervision which would be made impossible without accommodation in
close proximity. However, he points out
that this activity presently forms a small part of the overall business.
In the additional information submitted in
support of the proposal, copy of which is attached to this report as an
appendix, the applicant has attempted to demonstrate that it is not only the
breeding of horses which generates the need to live on site but also the
welfare of animals in their care.
Furthermore, he indicates that Little Rodgebrook Farm will provide a
suitable and safe environment for their breeding programme to form a much more
significant part of the business.
On the basis of the information submitted by the
applicant and the comments of the consultant approached by the Authority, I am
satisfied that the business is a viable one and the relocation to the
application site will provide the opportunity to expand the business and will
not have an adverse effect. However,
the question as to whether there is a functional need to live on site is more
finely balanced. I am satisfied that it
would be necessary to live on site to supervise the breeding of horses and
whilst this presently forms a relatively small part of the applicant's
business, it is understood that the relocation of the business would provide
the opportunity to expand on the current activities in this respect. Therefore, in this instance, having regard
to the nature and scale of the operation proposed and the relatively isolated
rural location, I consider that, on balance, the applicant has sufficiently
demonstrated that there is a need for a dwelling on site to be occupied in
connection with the business activities.
Consequently, I consider that the residential accommodation may be
exceptionally permitted in this instance without prejudicing policies of the
Unitary Development Plan or the Authority's position in defending inappropriate
proposals for development in the countryside at a later date.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to grant
planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the
proposal to operate an equestrian business from the land and buildings
represents an acceptable use in this location and does not conflict with
policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Furthermore, whilst finely balanced, I am
satisfied that the use is one which requires close and round the clock
supervision thereby justifying the provision of a dwelling for occupation in
connection with the business activities.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
development, insofar as it relates to the dwelling hereby permitted shall be
begun either before the expiration of 1 year from the date of this
permission, or before the expiration of 1 year from the date of approval of
the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason:
To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
Application
for approval of the reserved matters for the approved dwelling shall be made
to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 1 year from the date
of this permission. Reason:
To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
3 |
Approval
of the details of the design and external appearance of the dwelling, the
means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called
"the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning
Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory
development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1
(Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3
(Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The
occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to the
owner/manager or to a person solely or mainly employed in connection with the
authorised business occupying the land edged red on the attached plan, or a
widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependents. Reason:
The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted and, in
this instance, an overriding need has been demonstrated in connection with
the use of the land for an equestrian business and to comply with Policy G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) and Policy G5 (Development
Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
development hereby permitted, insofar as it relates to the change of use of
the land and buildings for an equestrian business, alterations and extension
to the existing buildings to provide stables and storage and a manege, shall
be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
6 |
Construction
of the dwelling hereby approved shall not commence until such time that work
in connection with the extension and alterations to the buildings to provide
stables has been completed to a standard which would permit the authorised
use to commence. Reason: The
site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted and, in
this instance, an overriding need has been demonstrated in connection with
the use of the land for an equestrian business and to comply with Policy G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) and Policy G5 (Development
Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The
alterations/extension of the existing building hereby permitted shall not
commence until details of the external cladding, to include colour finish, to
be used on the walls and roof of the building have 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. |
|
8 |
Stables - no caravans, etc -
F31 |
|
9 |
Stables - no outside storage -
F32 |
|
10 |
Stables - no burning of
manure - F33 |
|
11 |
With the
exception of the area within the manege hereby approved, no jumps or similar
structures shall be placed on the land at any time without prior permission
having first been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with
Policy C22 (Keeping of Horses for Recreational Purposes) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
12 |
Prior to
the site being brought into use for the authorised purpose a plan indicating
the position, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be
erected so as to sub-divide the fields shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such fencing shall be erected, retained and maintained in accordance
with the approved details and no other such fencing shall be erected without
the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply
with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and C1
(Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
4. |
TCP/20953/A P/00795/01 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland Registration Date: 21/05/2001 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Dr & Mrs M Patterson Demolition of dwelling;
Construction of 4 storey block of 7 flats,
parking and alterations to vehicular access (revised plans -
readvertised application) Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland
Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390EN |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is particularly contentious and
has attracted large number of representations.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken
104 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to
protracted negotiations and discussions with the applicant's agent, with
particular regard to ground stability/cliff recession.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to residential property
occupying corner site on eastern side of Cliff Road immediately adjacent
junction with Eden Road.
The existing dwelling within site, whilst
providing element of two storey accommodation, is predominantly single
storey. However, it is understood that
dwelling was previously quite substantial two storey building with additional
accommodation within roof space. Upper
storeys of building were removed many years ago resulting in the flat roof
structure which occupies the site at present.
Property occupies relatively mature landscape
site which is, for most part, relatively level rising to slightly higher level
along southern boundary. Property is
presently served by existing access and single garage in south western corner
of site.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/20953/S/26732 - Outline for dwelling and
garage on plot forming part of curtilage to Wilmington refused in January 1992
on grounds that plot was of inadequate width in comparison with adjoining
development and would lead to cramped appearance in street scene to detriment
of visual amenities and character of area, and also that introduction of a
dwelling on site proposed would lead to development incompatible with the
surrounding area.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Plans which accompanied original submission
showed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a building containing
nine flats on five floors, two flats on each floor from ground level to third
floor with penthouse flat at fourth floor level within roof space. Building effectively comprised two
rectangular blocks with central linking feature having curved front providing
foyer area, stairwell and lift shaft.
On the submitted plans, flats from ground to third floor level were
shown to provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, dining area, two
bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom/w.c. Penthouse flat provided accommodation
comprising lounge, kitchen/dining area, three bedrooms (all with en-suite
facilities) and w.c. Proposal also
included alterations to vehicular access and formation of parking area with six
parking spaces and six garages in two blocks of three.
Following discussions with applicant's agent
further plans were submitted showing revised scheme for seven flats in a three
storey building with penthouse flat in roof space. In addition, plans included revised access and parking
arrangements, omitting garages, and showing a narrower access point onto road
with ten parking spaces and shelter for storage of cycles. Plans also showed some minor alterations to
fenestration of building replacing windows with patio doors and provision of
ballustrading in front of doors on the upper floors. Design concept of building remained the same, i.e. two
rectangular blocks linked by curved central feature.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Planning policy guidance note 3 - Housing sets
out the Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues
relating to provision of housing. In
particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more
sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of greenfield
land being taken for development. This
can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most
additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use
of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. The guidance note indicates that national
target is that, by 2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on
previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.
Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan to be within development boundary for Totland and immediately
adjacent an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:
S1
- New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S2
- Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed
(brownfield sites) rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites.
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 units over
the Plan period. Whilst a large
proportion of this development will occur on sites with 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.
G7
- Development on Unstable Land.
D1
- Standards of Design.
D2
- Standards for Development Within the Site.
H4
- Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.
TR6
- Cycling and Walking.
TR7
- Highway Considerations for New Development.
U11
- Infrastructure and Services Provision.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
In respect of original submission, Highway
Engineer commented that Cliff Road is unclassified with poor forward visibility
due to road alignment particularly across site frontage. He considered that development was of a
nature which would generate significant increase in vehicular traffic and
raised a number of issues which can be summarised as follows:
Very
wide access proposed will not provide adequate visibility.
Site
within Zone 3 of UDP parking guidelines.
Reduced parking provision would be expected - twelve spaces indicated
accord with policy.
Turning
space as indicated is limited, particularly for the southern garage block and
one of parking spaces.
No
cycle parking shown.
Parking/turning
area and access has fall towards Cliff Road - no indication of surface water
drainage has been shown.
Following submission of revised plans Highway
Engineer recommended conditions should application be approved.
Having regard to proximity of property to the
coastal slope applicant's agent was advised of need to submit ground stability
report and consultations have been carried out with the Principal Building
Control Surveyor. Principal Building
Control Surveyor advises that the submitted report concludes that, as the cliff
line has not receded locally in the last 100 years, the development will not be
affected by ground instability.
However, he comments that no mention is made in the report that the
property known as "Blue Peter" was demolished in the recent past due
to structural movement caused by ground instability. He therefore considered
that the engineer should be required to comment on this further and, in
addition, confirmation should be sought that storm water drainage will not
discharge to soakaways. He also
commented that, for ground stability reasons, the engineer recommended that the
amount of soil to be removed from the site should at least be equal to the
weight of the proposed development and questioned whether this can be
enforced. He also suggested that
consultations should be carried out with the Coastal Manager.
Further information was received from the
engineers retained by the applicants, with particular regard to property known
as "Blue Peter". Engineer
indicated that it was his understanding that problem with "Blue
Peter" was caused by cliff line recession and if this is a serious
problem, then Highways Department would take whatever corrective action they
would deem necessary to maintain the highway.
They commented that, at present, this section of Cliff Road is not
considered to be of major concern and there are no plans to carry out remedial
work at this location to improve the situation. Consequently, the engineer considered that the cliff line
recession presented a low risk.
Following receipt of this information, further
consultations were carried out with Principal Building Control Surveyor. He again suggested that, with regard to
cliff recession, consultations should be carried out with the Coastal
Manager. He also suggested that the
engineer was advised that he cannot rely on the Council to maintain the road
and asked to comment on whether this changed his views of stability
issues. He also questioned whether the
Southern Water sewer in the area had a suitable outfall.
In response to suggestions that the Council
would maintain the highway in the event of cliff recession, Highway Engineer
commented that this would probably depend on scale of problem and also
indicated that Cliff Road is not a major traffic route as there are alternative
routes to serve the local area. He
indicated that whilst the Highway Authority will take all reasonable steps to
maintain the road and repair it for as long as possible, one can envisage a
situation where, if a major failure occurred, it could be stopped-up and
abandoned. In particular, he indicated
that this is not a principal road such as Undercliff Drive and if it became
totally uneconomic to repair, such a decision may well be made.
Following consideration of further information
submitted by engineer retained by applicants, Principal Building Control
Surveyor indicated that the problem in this area is generally one of cliff
recession and providing there was appropriate protection along the coastline at
this point, there was unlikely to be a problem with development of the site as
proposed. In this respect, the Coastal
Manager has confirmed that Cliff Road coastal frontage is protected by a sea
wall which was constructed in 1993. He
advised that the privately owned coastal slope behind the sea wall extending
back to Turf Walk is subject to occasional slope failures but, generally
speaking, the amount of retreat since Victorian times has been extremely
small. He acknowledged that the development
is situated on the landward side of the road and does not believe that there is
a risk to the proposed development from coastal landslip or erosion.
Suggestions from third parties and Parish
Council that property should be Listed have been considered by Council's
Conservation Officer and the property has been inspected by him to assess both
the historic and architectural value of the building to ascertain whether it
would be a candidate for listing. In
terms of historical value, from the information available to him, he considered
that the frescos would appear to be produced by an amateur painter rather than
an artist of national renown. In terms
of the overall merit of the building, he considered that the house has few
architectural features of any note, save the veranda and the conservatory, and
that the windows are straightforward side opening of no particular importance,
some of which have been replaced, and that the quality of brick is adequate but
not of impressive value. In terms of
architectural quality, given that a greater proportion of the building has
already been demolished, it has none of the requirements to make it a suitable
candidate for listing.
Following recent inspection of the site,
Assistant Ecology Officer advises that there is evidence of badgers foraging in
the garden. However, she found no
evidence of a sett within the site. She
also found evidence of badgers in neighbouring gardens and what appeared to be
a disused outlier sett within an adjacent property. She advises that there does not appear to be a sett within 30
metres of the proposed development site and, therefore, no licensing should be
required. However, if piling operations
are required, she suggested that it would be advisable for the applicant to
contact English Nature to obtain advice on minimum distances between these
operations and any sett which may be in a neighbouring garden. Furthermore, she advised that it would be
good practice for any trenches formed during building work to be covered at
night or provided with a means of escape for animals which might fall in and
for chemicals on site to be stored securely.
Senior Countryside Officer advises that the
trees shown to be removed are of little merit and their removal would not
justify refusal of the application.
However, he advises that there are other trees on site which are worth
retaining and are not shown on the submitted plans. He considers that the trees to be retained form an important part
of the local landscape and he is anxious to ensure that they are protected
during building operations.
Application was considered on two occasions by
the Architects Panel. With regard to
the original submission, the Panel raised the following issues:
The
half timbering on the two projecting gables to the front of Eden Road seem
totally unnecessary and the Panel recommended that these should be removed.
The
overall height of the building at five storeys appeared not unreasonable,
although some concern was expressed at the large expanse of roof and rather
fragmented layout of the roof lights at this level and, whilst consideration
was given to possibility of dormers, this was rejected.
With
regard to the footprint of the building, this was considered acceptable,
although it was noted that the drawings did not really indicate the complexity
of the footprint with the circular entrance hall.
With
regard to use of materials, the Panel had no problem with this although it
recommended that the quality of materials would reflect on the quality of the
design and should try to reflect the traditional materials in the area.
Following consideration of the revised
proposals, Architects Panel commented that the general scale of the development
on the site was better with the removal of one storey and the proposal was more
comfortable in the street scene.
Southern Water advise that their records show
several incidents involving smell from or blockages on private drains,
including the incident referred to by local residents at Greywood, opposite the
application site. They indicate that
none of these incidents would suggest that the public sewer is overloaded.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Totland Parish Council object to proposal on
grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Overdevelopment
at too high a density.
Spoil
visual aspect of area.
Scale
of building not appropriate to surroundings.
Development
would exacerbate instability of cliff.
House nearby succumbed to cliff falls.
Following consideration of revised proposals,
Totland Parish Council maintained their objection to the proposal, adding the
additional comments:
Detract
from area as a tourist attraction.
Creation
of precedent leading to decline of area.
Parish Council suggested that the Development
Control Committee should carry out a site inspection.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Original submission attracted 65 letters,
predominantly from residents of Totland but also from elsewhere on Island,
mainland and abroad. Grounds for
objection can be summarised as follows:
Building
of more than two storeys out of keeping with character and buildings in
surrounding area detrimental to amenities of the locality.
Overdevelopment.
Proposed
building is too large and not at all attractive.
Proposal
does not include sufficient parking facilities for nine flats - limited
on-street parking available.
Vehicular
access to Cliff Road and Eden Road would be hazardous to residents and highway
users.
Traffic
generation/noise to detriment of amenities of area and local residents.
Adequacy
of roads, sewerage system and other amenities to support additional loads is
questioned - property in area has recently flooded.
Development
would set precedent for future proposals of similar nature.
Loss
of trees to detriment of area and surrounding wildlife.
Loss
of light to adjacent property.
Overlooking
to adjacent property.
Demolition/construction
work would cause vibration and in view of recent landslips/cliff falls further
problems could be experienced.
Nearby
property was demolished due to flooding and erosion and adjacent property
seriously affected.
Property
was for many years home of Violet Hammersley - plays major part in cultural
history of West Wight. Property also
visited by Duncan Grant (English Painter) who painted on walls of property. Building is considered to be of particular
architectural and historic interest and should be listed.
Need
for extra housing questioned, particularly having regard to lack of employment
opportunities in the West Wight.
Proposal
would detract from appeal of area for tourists.
Area
and site home to family of badgers.
Following publication of revised proposal, a
further 40 letters were received raising no new issues, although several
acknowledged reduction in height of building.
Publication of the revised proposal attracted
one letter of support from resident who indicated that, whilst it is a pity to
lose such a lovely Victorian building, they were pleased with reduction in size
of the new building and amazed at attractiveness of proposal. They considered that cesspit drainage not
sufficient for seven family building, although if building is to be connected
to mains, original objection is withdrawn.
Furthermore, they comment that building would be asset to regeneration
of Totland and provide jobs for many craftsmen and tradesmen.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering application
are considered to be as follows:
Whether
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes as proposed is acceptable in
principle.
Whether
proposed building is of an acceptable scale, particularly in terms of its
height and overall mass and whether design and general appearance of building
is appropriate or would detract from character of locality.
Whether
proposal would have excessive and unacceptable impact to detriment of amenities
of neighbouring properties.
I consider that proposal involves redevelopment
of a brownfield site and, having regard to its location within the defined
development boundary, I am satisfied that redevelopment for residential
purposes as proposed is acceptable in principle.
Having regard to the alterations which have
previously been carried out to the existing building, resulting in a flat roof
structure of relatively limited height, proposal will clearly have greater impact
on locality in general and neighbouring properties. However, I consider it is necessary to have regard for the
character and pattern of development within the wider area which is
characterised by a mix of dwelling types and styles, ranging from long established
buildings, including a number of quite
substantial properties, to more recent additions in the form of both houses and
bungalows. Notwithstanding the
diversity of building styles in the general locality, the impact of the
proposal in the street scene and, in particular, its relationship to the
properties immediately adjacent the site is clearly relevant. In this respect, the property immediately to
the east, fronting Eden Road, is a long established property having quite large
footprint providing two storey accommodation whilst to the south property
fronting Cliff Road is a quite substantial detached property providing two
storey plus attic accommodation. The
latter of these properties is situated at higher level to application site and
street scene which is submitted in support of proposal indicates that, due to
the changes in level, proposed building, although providing four storey
accommodation, will not exceed height of this property. Furthermore, I consider that prior to the
alterations to remove the upper storeys, it is likely that the existing
building would not have differed significantly from the proposal in terms of
the overall height of the building.
Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the scale of the
proposed building is not excessive or that it would detract from the character
of the locality. This view is supported
by the comments of the Architects Panel who considered that the proposal as
revised would sit more comfortably in the street scene.
Property is located within Zone 3 for the
purpose of determining appropriate level of parking provision and, in
accordance with the guidelines, proposal would attract a requirement for a
maximum of thirteen parking spaces.
Revised plans show parking for ten vehicles together with a cycle
shelter and, having regard to the requirements of the parking guidelines and
policies in this respect, I am satisfied that proposal incorporates appropriate
level of parking. Furthermore, revised
plans included alterations to access which have overcome the concerns of the
Highway Engineer and, in absence of any objection from him, I do not consider
that refusal of application on highway grounds would be sustainable.
The information from Southern Water Services
indicates that recent drainage problems experienced by householders in the
locality and, in particular, the incident involving flooding at Greywood,
opposite the application site, would appear to have been caused by blockages on
private drains and that this would not necessarily indicate that there were
inadequacies in the public sewer. With
regard to disposal of surface water drainage, having regard to location of site
in relatively close proximity to the coastal slope, use of soakaways is considered
to be inappropriate. As an alternative,
I consider that surface water from the development could be disposed of to the
highway storm water drain which runs along Cliff Road in a northerly direction
before discharging into the sea adjacent Totland Pier. However, the nearest connection point to
this system is some 140 metres to north, adjacent junction of Cliff Road and
Greenways. Alternatively, there is
highway storm water drain which runs around corner of Cliff Road and Eden Road
which discharges through an outfall into the Solent immediately to west of
site. I am advised by the technician
engineer within the Highways Department that the storm water system would be
adequate to dispose of surface water from the development.
Whilst noting concerns of local residents
regarding ground stability in the locality, it is understood from consultations
carried out in connection with the application that any problems along this
coastline relate predominantly to landslips or coastal erosion. Coastal Manager has confirmed that coastline
in the vicinity of application site is protected by a sea wall and does not
believe that there is a risk to the proposed development. Therefore, I am satisfied that applicants
have adequately addressed issue of ground stability and, subject to surface
water from the development to be disposed of in an appropriate manner, I do not
consider that concerns relating to ground stability would provide a sustainable
reason for refusal of the application.
Whilst concern has been raised regarding
demolition of the existing dwelling, having carried out consultations with the
Council's Conservation Officer in this respect, I do not consider that the
building is of sufficient historical or architectural merit, or that it makes
significant contribution to the character of the area, so as to resist its
demolition or to withhold consent for the redevelopment of the site.
Original scheme included provision of balconies
on rear elevation at first, second and third floor level. Subsequent revision
to the scheme, reducing building by one storey resulted in removal of balconies
at third floor level. Proposal was
revised further removing all balconies from rear elevation and plans for
consideration show doors to dining room accommodation opening inward with
external ballustrading across opening.
I do not consider that, as a result of these alterations to the scheme,
and having regard to the topography of the area and distances between the
proposed building and neighbouring properties, proposal would result in an
unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy or that this would
justify withholding planning permission.
Furthermore, having regard to position of building in relation to
adjacent properties, I do not consider that proposal would result in
unacceptable loss of light or overshadowing.
In response to comments from Senior Countryside
Officer, further plans have been requested showing the additional trees. Furthermore, should Members be minded to
approve application, I recommend that a condition is imposed regarding protection
of trees during building operations.
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 other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in
principle. Furthermore, I am satisfied
that the proposed building is of an appropriate size, scale and design and will
not detract from the character of locality or amenities of neighbouring
occupiers.
1. RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No
development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all
trees/shrubs and/or other natural features, not previously agreed with the
Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or
other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority. Any fencing shall
conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling
to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground
height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height
heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of
agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the
retained tree). Such fencing or
barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site,
during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No
placement or storage of material; (b)No
placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No
placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No
lighting of bonfires. (e)No
physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No
changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No
changes in ground levels. (h)No
digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any
trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major
roots are left undamaged. Reason:
To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are
adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the
construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12
(Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Before the
development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of
other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of
trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall
include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date
of planting. Reason: To
ensure that the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
All hard
and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. The works shall be carried
out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance
with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with
Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
All
material excavated as a result of general ground works 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 prior to occupation of any of the flats within the development hereby
approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) 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 positions,
design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed
before (the use hereby permitted is commenced) (before the building(s) is/are
occupied) (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority). 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. |
|
8 |
No
development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations
and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed with the Local
Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water and surface water
disposal. Any such agreed foul water
and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the
system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation
measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the
existing system. None of the flats
within the development hereby approved shall be occupied until such agreed
systems have been completed. Reason: To
ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for
the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service
Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Prior to
commencement of the development hereby approved and notwithstanding the
provisions of any Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development
Order, the level of the land hatched yellow on the approved drawing shall be
lowered so that the land and any things on it shall not be more than 0.6
metres above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays
shall be subsequently kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
10 |
The access
and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in
accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light
vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into
use: Footway
Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Any gates
to be provided shall be set back a distance of 6 metres from the edge of the
carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No flat
within the development hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been
laid out within the site in accordance with the plan attached for ten cars to
be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site
in forward gear and such provision shall be retained. Reason:
To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and
to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
13 |
No flat
within the development hereby approved shall be occupied 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 accordance with the
details shown on the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason:
To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with
Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
That the decision notice is
accompanied by a letter drawing attention to the comments of the Assistant
Ecology Officer in respect of badger activity within the site and general
locality.
|
5. |
TCP/22370/B P/02241/02 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde South West Registration Date: 06/12/2002 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Blakedew 411 Ltd & Neutrik (UK) Ltd Outline for residential
development (houses & flats) accessed off Sherbourne Avenue; increased site area to include community
building & open space between Sherbourne Avenue & Winston Close; area of land to be conveyed to education
& appropriate financial contribution;
pedestrian access from Mountbatten Drive & Winston Close; vehicular & pedestrian access into
school & relocation of existing employment, (readvertised application) east of Winston Close/north of
Grange Avenue existing industrial site south of, Sherbourne Avenue, Ryde,
PO33 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is a major submission where
there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a major application received on 6
December 2002. The reason for not
meeting the thirteen week deadline was due to the level of negotiations to add
value to the proposal and make it an acceptable scheme.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is an existing industrial site of 1.68
hectares which has been amended to include a further 0.09 ha to the immediate
northwest. Generally the site is
rectangular in shape and is accessed solely from Sherbourne Avenue. The site is cordoned by residential
development to its south, west and north and by Mayfield Church of England
Middle School to the immediate east.
The land is occupied by industrial buildings
associated car park and covered ground area and some unutilised landscaped
areas.
The site is not fully occupied with the main
uses being situated within the buildings to the northeast and the northwest.
Hedging is apparent on the north, east, south and
west boundaries except for the area around the access coming through Sherbourne
Avenue.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Various planning applications relating to
industrial use of site. TCP/22370A, an
outline scheme for 94 residential units was submitted in July 2001 with the
Committee resolution in January 2002 to grant planning permission subject to a
legal agreement securing the removal and relocation of the firm Neutrik. Due to difficulties with the various owners
not being in agreement this legal agreement was not entered into and
subsequently the application received no formal determination and was finally
disposed of under the requirements of the General Permitted Development Order
Procedure 1995.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This is an outline application seeking a mixed
use of residential, open space, community buildings and community facilities on
a former industrial site.
The revised plans show an indicative layout of
67 units which has been submitted for calculation purposes of open space and
generated demand on education facilities.
Part of the application shows a community
building which is in situ to the northwest of the site which will be conveyed
over to the Council and/or a community group for the benefit of the community
in the area as a whole. Attached to
this is an area of open space which will form the same parcel of land and be
controlled by the same group. This open
space is public open space for the benefit of the area and accordingly for the
calculations of density does not need to be included. To the northeast of the site an area of land measuring
approximately 200 square metres is shown as land for educational purposes. This will be conveyed over to the Council/school
with a view to facilitate any requirements of future expansion. The scheme of 67 units generates 40 school
children (17 primary/13 middle/10 high).
A contribution of Ł100,000 will be made to provide the facilities
required to accommodate this influx of children.
With a view to safe routes to school, there were
three suggested access points for pedestrians other than the main access into
the site. These will be the west, the
southeast and onto the piece of land described above for education
facilities. The south east element is
now superfluous. An access will be
formed into the school to allow maintenance vehicles to carry on the informal
arrangement at present. The overall
density of 42 units per hectare is apparently higher than would be viewed on
site as the open space land has been taken out of the calculations. If the open space remained in the
calculations then the density would be 38 units per hectare.
The application is for outline planning
permission with only the means of access considered at this stage.
Off site sewage works will be required before
the development can proceed but this can be covered by Grampian
conditions. Surface water disposal will
be reduced because of the level of hard surfacing being reduced with this
scheme. That is, the factory buildings,
associated car parks and servicing areas will be reduced.
There may be some contamination on site but this
can be remediated along a line suggested by the Environmental Health Officer.
Affordable housing is suggested at the standard
rate of 20% of units being sold to a Registered Social Landlord at 50% of
market price. A design statement and
geo-technical report addressing the ground conditions and recommendations for
any contamination removal has been submitted as part of the application and a
letter from their chartered civil and water engineer is attached as an
appendix.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
National Policies
National policies are covered in PPG1 - General
Policies and Principles, PPG3 - Housing - March 2000) and its recently
published companion document by Design - Better Places to Live, PPG4 -
Industrial and Commercial Development in Small Firms and PPG13 - Transport
(plus Publication Draft of that document).
PPG1 - General Policy and Principles
covers the following:
Promotion of
sustainable development which seeks to deliver the objective of achieving now
and in the future economic development to secure high living standards whilst
protecting and enhancing the environment.
Document
emphasis the need for a plan-led system which is given statutory force by
Section 54A of the Act which requires that an application for planning
permission shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
PPG3 - Housing - March 2000:
This document emphasis the following:
Meet housing
requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable
housing.
Provide
wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and
location of housing.
Give
priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take
pressure off development of green field sites.
Create a
more sustainable pattern of development ensuring access ability by public
transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.
Make more
efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities (between 30 and 50
dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of development in places with
good public transport, access ability such as towns and local centres or around
major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
Place needs
of people before ease of traffic movement in designing the layout of
residential development.
Seek to
reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between
housing, jobs etc and reducing the level of parking. More than 1.5 off street spaces per dwelling are likely to
reflect Government’s emphasis on sustainable residential development.
Promote good
design and new housing developments in order to create attractive, high quality
living environment in which people will choose to live.
Delivery of affordable housing with the need of
a mix of housing types, including affordable housing being a material planning
consideration which should be taken into account in deciding planning
applications involving housing. Such a
requirement should be reinforced by a full assessment of local housing needs.
Decisions about the amount and type of
affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local
housing need and individual site suitability and be a matter for agreement
between the parties. Local Planning
Authorities and developers should be reasonably flexible in deciding the types
of affordable housing most appropriate to the particular sites. The objective should be ensure that
affordable housing secured will contribute to satisfying local housing needs as
demonstrated by a rigorous assessment.
It emphasis that such provision should be the subject of close liaison
with Housing Departments and such procedure will be subject to monitoring
through Government regional offices.
Companion Guide to PPG3 - By Design
- Better Places to Live
The purpose of this guide is to help deliver the
radical approach within PPG3 to residential development and represents a guide
to better practice, with particular attention as follows:
Assist in
the deliverability of the fundamental principles behind PPG3.
Prompt to
attention to urban design principles and approaches, with emphasis on
addressing the broader aspects of overall urban design.
Recognising
shortcomings of recent practice and learning from best examples of residential
development which have created successful housing environments. Document lists a number of attributes of
successful housing under the following headings:
Movement,
mix, community, structure, layout, place, amenity, parking, safety, space,
adaptability, maintenance, sustainability and detail.
PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial
Development and Small Firms - November 1992
This is a relatively longstanding document which
emphasis the following:
Put increased
emphasis on the need for Development Plans to take account of both the
locational demands of business and wider environmental objectives.
To stress
that careful consideration should be given to whether proposals for new
development may be incompatible with existing and commercial activities.
Most relevant advice in this document is
itemised as follows under separate headings:
Locational Factors:
Industry has
always sought locational advantages in response to various external factors
relating to demands of customer links with other businesses, the workforce
catchment area and various transport considerations. Businesses often give high priority to good access to roads.
Development
policies should encourage new development in locations which minimise the
length and number of trips.
Discourage
new development where it would be likely to add unacceptably to congestion.
Development Control
- A Positive Approach
Development control should not place
unjustifiable obstacles in the way of development which is necessary to provide
homes, investment and jobs. Planning
decisions must reconcile necessary development with environmental protection
and other Development Plan policies.
Mixed Uses
This section of the PPG has some relevance:
Reference is
made to businesses being carried out in residential areas without causing
unacceptable disturbance through increased traffic noise, pollution or other
adverse effects. Planning decisions
will, of course, depend on such factors as scale, nature of use of the site and
its location.
It may be
inappropriate to separate industry and commerce, especially small scale
developments from residential communities given that they are source of
employment and services. In primary
residential areas Planning Authorities should not seek to unreasonably restrict
commercial or industrial activities on an appropriate scale, particularly in
existing buildings which would not adversely affect residential amenity.
Planning
permissions should be granted unless there are specific and significant
objections in relation to Development Plan policy, unacceptable noise, smell,
safety and health impacts or excessive traffic generation.
Where
planning consent for industrial or commercial development is granted within
residential areas, Planning Authorities should bear in mind the subsequent
intensification of the use may become unacceptable intrusive. Unless it amounts to a material change in
the character of the use, intensification cannot be controlled if unconditional
planning permission has been granted.
Planning Authorities should therefore consider the use of planning
conditions or planning obligations to safeguard local amenity where they would
be an appropriate means of preventing foreseeable harm.
Where
residential development is proposed in the vicinity of existing industrial
uses, the expectations of the residents may exceed the standards applied by the
Planning Authority and may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use.
It is a particular problem where other legislation such as that relating to
environmental pollution or public health might subsequently result in costly
new conditions or restrictions being imposed on the industry as a consequence
of the new neighbouring development.
Preferable
for buildings to be used appropriately than to stand wholly or partially
empty. Document emphasis a flexible
attitude with respect to use to enable suitable reuse or new use being
instituted where this might contribute to the preservation of the building.
Speculative Development
A few firms,
especially small ones, can afford to build their own premises and developers
who provide unit factories suitable for small firms are contributing to the
expansion of the economy and of employment.
Developments
should be considered on their land use planning merits. Authorities should not normally seek to
investigate whether the developer already has a particular prospective
purchaser or tenants, this will seldom be a material consideration.
PPG13 - Transport
Public Consultation draft of the revised PPG13
is likely to become an official policy guidance document in the near future and
replace the March 1994 guidance.
It reiterates many of the policies referred to
in PPG3 linking transport to housing, the important role that sustainable
transport policies play and also refers to managing travel demand, with
particular reference to parking issues.
The following represents a summary of these particular issues:
Availability
of car parking is made an influence on choice of means of transport.
Levels of
parking more significant than levels of public transport provision in
determining means of travel.
Car parking
takes up large amounts of space on developments and reduces densities.
Local
Planning Authorities should ensure levels of parking in association with
development will promote sustainable transport choices.
Encourage
the setting-up of maximum levels of parking and emphasise that there should be
no minimum parking requirement for development.
Other Supplementary Planning Guidance is
contained in Places, Streets and Movements, Companion Guide to Design Bulletin
32 - Residential Roads and Footpaths published by DETR in September 1998.
This document should be read in conjunction with
the original Design Bulletin 32 and represents Government policy and
initiatives aimed at achieving attractive and sustainable residential areas and
settlements through better design.
Significant statement in respect of urban design is quoted as follows:
“Good urban
design imaginatively used helps to make places more attractive in which to live
and in the context of the need for more housing, may help them to accommodate
more homes than was previously the case.
To accommodate more development within urban areas, but more
particularly to create more sustainable patterns of development, Local Planning
Authorities will need to explore the viability of an increase in the density of
development around towns and local centres and other areas well served by
public transport.”
Local Plan Policies
Site is situated within the development envelope
boundary as defined on the statutory Unitary Development Plan, but has no
specific allocation and therefore given its present and recent use, will be
deemed to be an employment site. The
site is not within a flood plain area as defined by the Environment Agency’s
flood plain maps of 1999.
Detailed policies which apply are listed below:
Policy
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.
Policy G10 -
Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.
Policy D1 -
Standards of Design.
Policy D2 -
Standards of Development within the Site.
Policy H1 -
Major new residential developments to be located within the main island towns.
Policy H2 -
To ensure that large residential developments contain a variety of house sizes
and types.
Policy H4 -
Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.
Policy H6 -
High density residential development.
Policy H14 -
Locally affordable housing as an element of housing schemes.
Policy E3 -
Resist the development of allocated employment land for other uses.
Policy R3 -
Locating development to minimise the need to travel.
Policy TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development.
Policy TR16
- Parking Policies and Guidelines.
Policy U11 -
Infrastructure and Services Provision.
Policy L10 -
Open Space in Housing Developments.
Members are reminded that during the final
processes of the Unitary Development Plan, GOSE (Government Office for the
South East) objected to the housing policies within the UDP on the grounds that
they did not reflect policies within PPG3 - Housing - March 2000. This was because the policies were
formulated prior to the publication of that PPG. The GOSE objection was withdrawn following an agreement that the
housing policies would be withdrawn following an agreement that the housing
policies would be immediately reviewed to reflect PPG3, thus enabling the
Unitary Development Plan to be formally adopted. This review process is currently in place. It is unlikely that such a process will
radically alter the housing policies.
Members’ attention is also drawn to strategic
policies within the Unitary Development Plan, with particular reference to
Policies S2, S5, S7 and S8.
More important policies relating to this
particular proposal are expanded upon as follows:
Policy D1 refers to planning applications
conforming with the following:
Respect the
visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding areas.
Sympathetic
in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing.
Of a height,
mass and density which is compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses.
Do not
constitute development, leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness and
they should include appropriate space in-between properties.
Do not
detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.
Policy H6 refers to the following:
Development
is close to public transport and services and local town centre facilities.
The
amenities of surrounding area will not be unduly affected.
Open space
and other requirements are not compromised.
Density and
design is acceptable and appropriate to the historic character and layout of
the settlement.
Policy H14 refers to the Council seeking to
negotiate an element of affordable housing as part of the scheme with relevant
extract as follows:
“The scale
and type of provision will be considered in relation to local needs. However, the Council is seeking to achieve
20% of housing on appropriate sites to be developed and handed over to a
registered social landlord at a discounted price 50% market value. Mechanisms will need to be put in place to
ensure that such provision remains in affordable use in the long-term.
On suitable
sites where the Council consider it preferable to provide affordable housing,
it may be prepared to accept:
An
appropriate contribution of service land which may also include built
affordable housing units.
A
financial contribution sufficient to enable a Housing Association to provide
the agreed number of units either by new building or the purchase of existing
stock.”
Policy E3 is quoted in its entirety as follows:
“Planning
applications which protect or enhance the employment use of existing or
allocated employment land and premises will be approved. Application for a change of use of land or
premises to those outside employment use will not be permitted. The only exceptions to this policy will be
where:
(a) there is
an identified need for the proposed use and no other suitable site is
available; or
(b) where
alternative equipment, floor space suitable for employment purposes can be
found in the area without releasing land outside the development envelope
boundary for the development or see the loss of the site would not prejudice
the ability of the area to meet local employment needs; or
(c) the loss
of the site would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local
employment needs; or
(d) the
development involves a relocation of a non-conforming use from an unsuitable
existing site and
(e) the
proposal is for an overall development of the site and involves an acceptable
mix of uses.”
Policy TR16 refers to planning applications
which seek to reduce car parking requirements to an operational minimum and if
they are in accordance with the Council’s parking guidelines, will be
approved.
In this regard, Members’ attention is drawn to
parking guidelines policies and in particular parking zones of which there are
four. This application site is situated
within Zone 3 which comprises the outer fringes of Ryde. Characteristics are as follows:
On street
parking is generally unrestricted (control confined to main distributor roads)
and is not currently a significant problem.
Few public
car parks in this zone. Those which do
exist are not heavily used outside the holiday season.
Reasonable
access on foot or cycle to local town centres, shops, schools and other
community facilities.
Reasonable
access to bus services, but these may be less frequent than half hourly.
Large number
of car owning households have private parking space in this zone.
The maximum level of car parking space required
for residential off street parking is one aligned car parking space per
bedroom. One car parking space per
four units visitor spaces.
Within Zone 3 between 0-75% of the maximum
non-operational vehicle parking provision should be allowed on site.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Letter of support from the Isle of Wight
Economic Partnership, a copy of the letter attached as an appendix.
Letter from Southern Water attached as an
appendix.
Letter from Environment Agency, copy attached as
part of the appendix.
Correspondence from the Technical Engineer of
the Council's Engineering Services explaining that the Council owns no ditches,
drains or similar water disposal methods are used for this development. However, there is a pipe which takes surface
water that runs from the site which is suggested to be explored.
The Council's Education Officer writes to say
that this scheme will generate enough children for three new classes at a
current cost of Ł324,000. (This has
since been discussed in light of the reduced scheme and the need to distribute
effectively one class size amongst three schools. He is in agreement that a contribution of Ł100,000 and the
conveyance of some land is appropriate).
The Contamination Land Officer states "I
have now received a desktop study report and geo-environmental investigation
report from Michael Phelps. I have
reviewed their content and make the following conclusions: In order to be satisfied that the site is
suitable for its intended use, I need to see some research into the previous
industrial processes undertaken on this site and some more focussed intrusive
site investigation undertaken. In
addition to this the reports do not cover the whole site and therefore I
recommend the following conditions to be attached to the planning consent for
the application relating to Sherbourne Avenue". The conditions relate to a desktop study, documentation of ground
conditions and remediation. Also a
condition secures that no development shall take place until these remediation
measures are in place.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Letter of support from Neutrik stating "It
is essential that Neutrik UK to realise the maximum financial return on the
sale of our existing premises at the address above to further the development
of our new premises on Westridge and I would like to confirm our support of
this application. We are prepared to
enter into a Section 106 Agreement to the effect that all the proceeds of the
sale of our land, plus a very substantial investment from our parent company,
will go towards the development of a new factory". A further letter explaining Neutrik's position
is attached as an appendix.
Letter of comment outlining outstanding issues
from local Member.
With reference to the first advertised scheme 57
letters of objection from local residents with planning related comments and
concerns on:
1. Loss
of employment and work.
2. Fear
of crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour.
3. Sewage
system and surface water disposal experiences to date and in the future.
4. Increase
in pollution levels.
5. Human
rights.
6. Increase
in traffic, access and parking problems, roads unsuitable for heavy traffic.
7. Density.
8. Contrary
to policies E1, E3, E4 and E9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9. No
justification for move.
10. Against
the spirit of Agenda 21.
11. Lack
of open space.
12. Increase
in children, demand on education system.
13. Lack
of doctors and dentists in the area.
14. Less
room on public transport.
15. Trees
and wildlife are likely to be affected.
16. Overlooking.
17. Unstable
slopes.
18. Restriction
of fire access.
19. Loss
of privacy.
20. Safe
routes to school scheme.
With regard to the second application, five
letters (two from the same owner) concerned with:
1. Increase
in noise, rubbish, vandalism and nuisance of people walking by at all hours of
the day and night.
2. Lack of
privacy.
3. Change
nature of cul-de-sac.
4. Removal of
landscaping.
5. Danger for
children.
6.
Infrastructure.
7. Traffic
systems inadequate.
8. No increase
in local services.
9. Drainage
and flooding problems.
10. Strain on police services.
11. Pedestrian accesses are wrong.
12. Loss of industrial land.
13. Generation of traffic.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to
comment but no observations have been received.
EVALUATION
In essence this application seeks to follow the
resolution for approval on the previous scheme (TCP/22370A). However, it differs in that the number of
units is reduced to 67, open space is provided, a community building is
provided, an area of land is conveyed to the Education Authority, two
pedestrian accesses are added and a contribution of Ł100,000 to meet
educational needs generated by this development is put forward. Density is 43 dph excluding the open space.
There are a number of issues which remain and
again need to be considered when assessing the merits of this outline application
and these are shown below and titled in italics:
Loss of Employment Land
This is clearly the major issue, particularly
given the contents of Policy E3. It is
important to appreciate that planning permission has been granted for an
industrial building at the Westridge Industrial Estate. The residential development on this site
will provide major funding for the relocation to the business park on which the
applicant wishes to build a new factory.
The applicant is clearly of the view that the location, age and poor
condition of these existing premises in Sherbourne Avenue makes it impossible
for him to continue to compete in the world market, retain existing employment
levels and/or expand employment levels.
Policy E3 has a number of caveats which allow
exception to the policy not to permit change of use of employment land to any
other use:
C - The loss of the site would not
prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs.
D - The development involves the
relocation of non-conforming use from an unsuitable existing site.
The text to Policy E3 reads:
“One of the
main aims in allocating employment land is to help create jobs. The Island is at a disadvantage in
comparison to the mainland however and it has proved difficult despite various
initiatives and promotions to encourage new industrial development to this side
of the Solent. At the same time
established Island companies have been unwilling to expand during a period of
economic uncertainty. As a result,
employment sites have been slow to develop and vacant sites are under pressure
for development to other uses. The
Council remains committed to job creation and believes that existing proposed
employment allocations should be protected from other development to ensure adequate
provision remains. There may be
exceptional circumstances where employment land is released for an alternative
development. However, the Council will
in such circumstances wish to be assured that a suitable replacement site is
available or an acceptable mix use is proposed prior to approval being
granted.”
The content of Representations from the first
advertised scheme indicates that local residents would prefer a continuation of
the industrial use as opposed to the site’s use for residential. This may be a surprising view based on the
fact that the current industrial occupation is not causing any undue
disturbance to local residents. I am
advised that complaints have been received not in respect of the current user
on site, but more when the larger building was being used. Those complaints relate to unacceptable
odour and unacceptable noise caused by employee behaviour and noisy processes
carried out within the building when doors and windows were open. I am advised that each time these complaints
were addressed, they were often repeated, particularly if new processes were
introduced or there were new occupiers of the building. Whilst recognising that the current occupier
of the site clearly coexists with local residents satisfactorily, controls
which could be exercised regarding other industrial users on this site are
limited, bearing in mind the age of the consents and the lack of conditions
controlling level and type of uses.
Therefore, it is important to appreciate that there are no guarantees
that the current compatible situation in respect of industrial/residential will
continue.
The second consideration is whether because of
the site’s location and general condition of the buildings, it could
realistically be attractive to alternative industrial users and thus continue
to contribute to employment for the Island.
It is noted that the main building on the site has remained unoccupied
over recent years and whilst acknowledging reference to potential interested
users, the fact remains these have not come forward and it is doubtful that the
level of use would provide the level of employment that this site has generated
in the past. It can be argued that to
create quality jobs there is a need to be on quality sites.
If this site is to continue for industrial
(employment) use, then there are a number of restrictions that will make
redevelopment difficult; condition of buildings, site difficult to develop with
users still in building uneconomical to subdivide.
If the existing user was to move on, then the
site would, in my opinion, remain vacant in its entirety for some considerable
time, although it may attract some small operators in the short term which
would not be making best use of the piece of land in terms of employment
generation. Also any restrictions
through conditions that were to be placed on any new industrial development on
the site would be a further deterrent to potential occupiers, with those
restrictions relating to the position of the site relative to nearby
residential properties.
Given the above assessment, I am of the opinion
that the current proposal at least provides some certainty of the continuation
of employment in the area by relocating an existing business from the site to a
purpose designed industrial plot, thus enabling the existing site to be
released for appropriate alternative development which in this case the
applicant suggests should be residential.
Control of Relocation
If Policy E3 is to be complied with, then
mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure relocation runs parallel with
residential development on the current Sherbourne Avenue site. Members’ attention is drawn to the Teknacron
applications in Shanklin which were dealt under a Section 106 to ensure the
relocation package is suitably structured to ensure both relocation takes place
and is maintained for at least the short-term.
This agreement would need to be carefully considered in terms of
logistics with the likely outcome being that the factory will be constructed
prior to location of the existing site and that occupation takes place prior to
development commencing on the Sherbourne Avenue site. It is important to appreciate that residential approval to the
development of this site is probably the most important element of the package if
it is to succeed, although I understand the applicant is likely to obtain
grants to assist in the funding of the new factory building. The Council’s Legal Department has already
been requested to consider heads of agreement in respect of this matter and no
consents would be granted prior to the agreement being formally discharged.
Appropriateness of Residential
Development as Alternative Use
Clearly the location of this site surrounded on
three sides by residential development in an area which is virtually wholly
characterised by residential development suggests that this type of use would
be appropriate. The question of traffic
generation will be addressed below.
However, the general hierarchy of roads serve, in the main, residential
and school, apart from the current industrial use on the site.
Density - Mix, Arrangement, Parking
Provision
PPG3 now seeks best use of urban land and
suggest minimum densities, all of which have already been referred to. The density is 43 dph (excluding the open
space).
The introduction of flats within a mix of houses
and bungalows complies with the policies both national and local which require
sites of this size to contain a range of dwelling types in order to cater for a
range of income groups. Directives from
the Minister responsible for housing suggests that he will expect this policy
to be robustly applied, having made specific reference to the need to ensure
residential development provides the opportunity for all sections of society,
with particular reference to essential workers in the services industry, to
achieve that first foot on the ladder of home ownership.
Whilst debating the mix and density it is useful
to note that the development in Mountbatten Drive which abuts in part the south
eastern corner of the site which is a mixture of semi-detached and two storey
flats and also to the development of Tandy Close which as Members may be aware,
once accommodated a factory and has now been developed in the form of 24
semi-detached houses and two bungalows which in isolation represents a density
of 60 units per hectare. Therefore, the
current density proposed is not considered to be excessively higher than the
adjoining densities.
In terms of general arrangement of dwellings
within the layout (remembering that this is an outline application), this
reflects the current trend towards omission of traditional front gardens and
their replacement by courtyards which provide parking facilities and are
overlooked by groups of dwellings. The
plan is submitted for illustration purposes only. Applicants have been encouraged to ensure that there is no
circulatory route.
Traffic Generation Comparisons
Traffic generated from this size of site with a
similar user will generate 618 - 1795 trips daily. The residential use would generate considerably less traffic both
in terms of number of vehicles and type of vehicles than would be generated if
the whole of the site was used for industrial purposes.
The issue of traffic calming measures within
Sherbourne Avenue has been suggested.
In this regard, reference is made to places, streets and movements in
the Companion Guide to Design Bulletin 32 which emphasis that traffic schemes
should be managed by the arrangement of buildings and spaces and the aim should
be to take into account traffic calming at the earliest stages in the design
process.
Whilst I fully understand that local residents
are not concerned regarding the current traffic generated by the under-use of
the industrial site, any assessment of proposed redevelopment of this site has
to be based on either the full use of the site for industrial purposes when
compared with the full use of the site for residential. Whilst I accept figures can be disputed,
there is no doubt that the full use of the site for industrial purposes will
create additional traffic, including the use of larger commercial vehicles and
result in an increase over and above the current restrained traffic generation
taking place. There are a number of
examples of single accesses serving a considerable number of units, i.e.
Sandham Gardens, Lake, a single access onto Whitecross Lane serving
approximately 250 units which is an access which to my knowledge has caused no
major problems despite this high level of units. Given the above, I consider that issue of traffic generation
would not represent a sustainable reason to refuse the application even based
on the relatively high density development being proposed.
Affordable Housing
The promotion of Policy (H14) has proved
difficult on a number of individual sites and this situation is no different
with regard to the current application.
When applying the policy to the current proposal, then there should be
an allocation of 13.4 units to satisfy the 20% provision.
Traffic Calming - Sherbourne Avenue
This is a proposal which the Highway Engineer
considered appropriate on the previous application would bring benefits to the
area and provide the essential traffic calming and lower car speeds both to the
existing residents of Sherbourne Avenue and the additional residents which may
be created by the current proposal assuming consent is granted for this
scheme. Such a condition can be applied
under the Grampian condition procedure rather than through the mechanism of a
legal agreement and would require any developer to employ his own highway
design engineers to both produce the scheme and implement it in accordance with
an agreed programme. The main question
is whether or not this is a reasonable request of the applicant on top of the
affordable housing requirement.
Community Building and Open Space
There appears a real need to provide some form
of facility for local use to meet the existing demand and that generated from
the development as a whole. PPG17
(Places for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) requires a vigorous assessment of
need to be made. In the absence of an
assessment of Ryde as a whole I have used National Playing Fields Association
standard. The area of land provided for
open space falls short of the requirement of the guidelines but this is more
than compensated by the provision of a community building on site. It is important that this building is used
for a local demand. It appears that
although Island Volunteers have expressed an interest, the local demand may be
best met by a local group. The
building's use could be similar to a community building, allowing receptions,
Christenings etc, but not prejudicing other community led projects such as one
of two starter/training units. The
existing residents' association, I believe, has made moves to establish
themselves as a trust and depending upon their terms of reference should be
best placed to take this on board.
As any group would be new I suggest through the
legal agreement that this building and land (which includes the open space) is
conveyed to the Council and leased to the group on a five year basis. If this then runs successfully the Trust (or
whoever) will then have the freehold.
Drainage
Before addressing drainage issues, it is
important to appreciate that this is an outline application establishing a
principle and whilst it is important to establish that this proposed
development can be drained satisfactorily from a foul and surface water
drainage point of view, it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to submit
full detailed calculations at this stage.
A route for the disposal of foul and surface
water has been established. With
appropriate expenditure these existing systems can be upgraded to accommodate
the proposals. A Grampian style
condition would be appropriate.
Security
Members’ attention is drawn to the existence of
a gate on the northern boundary which allows easy access to the school. The existence of this gate, whilst providing
a convenient access to the school, does present a security problem and
therefore its continued existence should the site be developed for residential
purposes is one which needs to be considered carefully. It is suggested that this is moved to the
north east of the site and be used only by local residents to gain access to
the school during the times the school is open with at all other times that
gate being permanently locked. In all
other respects, I consider that the issue of security via Section 17 of the
Crime and Disorder Act can adequately be addressed at the detailed stage, again
assuming the application is approved.
Contamination
Members will note that the application has been
accompanied by a full Contamination Report submitted by Geotechnical Engineers
and that report has been thoroughly vetted by the Contaminated Land
Officer. However, I have no reason to
believe that this report is not acceptable and clearly indicates the applicant
is aware of the contamination problems of the site and the need to address
these prior to other development taking place.
Again, this is an issue which can be adequately covered by way of
condition given the submission of the report and the very detailed comments of
the Contaminated Land Officer.
Effect on Trees
The issue of trees on the site has been somewhat
contentious given that the applicant initially completed his form by indicating
that there are no trees on the site, a fact which was clearly incorrect. This has now been addressed by the
readvertisement of the application and the submission of plans which indicate the
groupings of the trees and where they exist on the site.
A number of these trees are the subject of a
Preservation Order. The Preservation Orders date back to 1988 with many of them
being subject of recorded surgery in the ensuing years. There are five trees (four ash and one
oak) subject of a Tree Preservation Order along the southern boundary with that
order being dated January 1988. For
Members further information there are a further sixteen trees which also abut
the southern boundary but are not within the area of the site which are the
subject of a Tree Preservation Order with that order being made in September
1987. Finally, in terms of the eastern
boundary, records indicate that a total of eight trees are the subject of a
Tree Preservation Order (seven oak one ash) those trees immediately abutting
that boundary with the order being made in September 1988.
Landscaping will be controlled at the detail
stage.
Other Matters
It has been suggested that this application
should be the subject of a Environmental Impact Assessment. Members are advised however, that under the
regulations only developments which would have significant effect on the
environment by virtue of size, nature and location would require a formal
EIA. Circular 2/99 advises that such
projects are more likely to require EIA if the site area of the scheme is more
than 5 hectares (application site is 1.5 hectares) or would have a significant
urbanising effect on a non-urbanised area, eg more than 1,000 new dwellings,
application proposal is for 67 new dwellings.
No significant effects are identified in respect of ecological issues or
protected habitats and therefore it is suggested that an Environmental Impact
Assessment is not required. This does
not mean that all material environmental issues will not be taken into account
in the determination of the application.
Concerns expressed relating to ground conditions
are not supported by the Council’s Building Control Department who suggest that
there is no reason why houses cannot be constructed on this site providing
appropriate foundation designs are applied.
With regard to sustainable urban drainage
systems, again the Building Control Department suggest that the ground
conditions do not lend themselves readily to the use of soakaways, although a
final decision on this issue would have to the subject of percolation
tests.
A close boarded fence and gate 1.8 m high is
appropriate on the western boundary where it abuts the open space. There appears to be some dispute over the
ownership on Winston Close of land between this site and abutting the
highway. It remains appropriate to
provide a path here or certainly at least allow the provision on the
application site. Surface water
disposal on the existing car park that is to be retained can be covered by
conditions.
Conclusion
Members will appreciate that from the depth of
this report, this application has been the subject of careful analysis,
particularly in relation to policies and in particular fully acknowledging the
level of representations which have been expressed. Whilst policies quite rightly seek to retain employment land,
the particular circumstances of this site with regard to its location and
access, being predominantly residential, leads me to the view that the
relocation package is the only way forward, with that package at least ensuring
employment continuity which may hopefully result in increased employment
opportunities. This proposal will, as
far as is possible, guarantee the continued operation of this company on the
Island and indeed in this case within the Ryde area. I am advised that company has an employment level of
approximately 120 and it is important to ensure that this level of employment
is retained. Whilst accepting the
residential development is also causing
concern, but again this is entirely in accordance with the national and
therefore Local Planning policies, making a valuable contribution towards
housing figures on an urban site, thus taking pressures off green field sites. I therefore recommend accordingly.
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 other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that the
development of this site on an existing industrial site would meet a housing
demand and provide community facilities and secure a move of an existing
occupier to Westridge and therefore provides sufficient justification for
approval of this application. Therefore
on balance I recommend accordingly.
1. RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Subject
to Section 106 Agreement covering:
1.
Securing the relocation of Neutrik to Westridge.
2.
Financial contribution of Ł100,000 for educational facilities.
3.
The provision of the existing industrial building to the northwest of the site
for community facilities.
4.
The conveyance of open space in association with this community building to the
Council.
5.
The conveyance of the community building to the Council.
6. The
provision of an area of open land for educational purposes to the northeast of
the site to the Council.
7. Provision
of affordable housing of 20% of the units sold at half price to a registered
social landlord.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - outline -
A01 |
|
2 |
Time limit - reserved -
A02 |
|
3 |
Approval
of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings
and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved
matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing
before any development is commenced. Reason: In
order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies
S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of
Development Within This Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration
for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No
development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations
and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed with the Local
Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water
disposal. Any such agreed foul water
and surface water disposal systems shall indicate connections at points on
the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure any additional flows do
not cause flooding or overload existing systems. If the calculations of the surface water drainage proposal
require a surface water regulation system, such system shall be fully
implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme, with the scheme
incorporating the principles of sustainable drainage, including a maintenance
programme and establishing ownership in the future. Such agreed details shall be implemented before the first unit
of accommodation is occupied. Reason: To
ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for
the development in compliance with Policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
Details of
the design, construction and surface finish of any new roads, footways,
accesses, car parking areas/courtyard areas (existing and proposed), together
with details of disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter constructed in
accordance with the approved details and completed before the final five
units are occupied. Reason: To
ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed
dwelling. |
|
6 |
No
dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads, footways,
accesses, car parking areas/courtyard areas which serve that dwelling have
been constructed in accordance with the scheme agreed by the Local Planning
Authority in compliance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. Reason: To
ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed
dwelling. |
|
7 |
Before the
completion of 50% of the open market housing on this site is brought into
use, an agreed number of affordable housing units for rent shall be
constructed and made available through a registered social landlord at 20%
discount on market value. The agreed
number of affordable housing units for rent shall be at a proportion of 20%
of the total number of units on the overall site. The agreed number of affordable housing units for rent shall
remain in that use in the long-term.
Any part thereof a dwelling caused by the above calculations shall be
rounded up to the nearest whole unit. Reason: To
ensure provision of affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No
development shall commence on the site until a full tree and hedgerow survey
has been carried out indicating the location of all hedgerows, trees or
groups of trees, including their crown spreads, to be retained or to be
removed along with a schedule of their condition and necessary surgery works. Reason: To
allow proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the
existing landscape features and ensure retention and protection of trees and
hedgerows in the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with
Policy C12 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Space
shall be provided within the site as may be agreed with the Local Planning
Authority for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and the level of
such provision shall not exceed 1.5 off street car parking spaces per
dwelling. Reason: To
ensure an adequate level of off street parking provision in compliance with
PPG3 - Housing - March 2000. |
|
10 |
Development
shall not commence until all measures approved in the Geo-Environmental
Investigation Report dated 18 May 2001 prepared by Geotechnical Engineering
Limited have been fully implemented in accordance with the details contained
within that report and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the
Council's Contaminated Land Officer as follows: Gas
remedial measures must be incorporated into the design of all structures on
the site: 1. A low
permeability gas membrane in the floor. 2. A minimal
penetration of the above. 3. Use of
pre-formed 'top hats' where services penetrate the membrane. 4.
Ventilation of confined spaces. The
following remedial measures must be undertaken on the site prior to any
construction: 1. The
removal to a suitably licensed landfill of all ground that has visible or
odorous evidence of contamination. 2. After
removal of the above material, an extensive programme of soil sampling must
be undertaken using a dense sampling grid at approximately 10 metre intervals
and concentrating on potential 'hot spots' around locations of tanks and
chimneys etc. 3. The
above samples must be analysed by the contaminants analysed in report no.
12402/01 at a UKAS accredited laboratory. 4. The
results of the soil sampling programme must be submitted to the Contaminated
Land Officer in order to approve either further removal of remaining 'hot
spots' of contamination and/or the next stage of the remediation. 5. A layer
of 'clean' soil should be imported to the site. An analysis of this material must be undertaken in order to
verify that it is 'clean'. |
|
11 |
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. |
|
12 |
Vehicle
and pedestrian access shall be made to the north west boundary as illustrated
on the submitted plans and a pedestrian only access shall be made on the
western boundary linking Winston Close to the development. Both accesses shall be provided before the
first residential unit is occupied. Reason: To
ensure that the existing arrangements are safeguarded and adequate access to
this land is made for pedestrians and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of this Council's Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
Prior to
commencement of work, the developer shall submit a scheme of traffic calming
for the whole length of Sherbourne Avenue with such scheme complying with the
advice contained within Design B bulletin 32 second edition - Residential
Roads and Footpaths and its companion document - Places, Streets and
Movement. Any such agreed scheme
shall be implemented by the developer within an agreed programme and no
dwellings shall be occupied until the traffic calming scheme has been fully
implemented in accordance with the agreed programme. Reason: In
order to comply with reducing traffic speeds in the interests of highway
safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
No
development shall take place until the proposal setting out precautions to be
taken during the progress of works to guard against deposit of mud and
similar substances on the public highway shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such a proposal shall include washing facilities by which vehicles
will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free
of mud and similar substances. The proposal
shall be in place during the full extent of construction works. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
All
materials excavated as a result of the general ground works, 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 plan. The material shall be removed from the
site within an agreed timetable before the first unit is occupied. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining
residential properties in particular and to comply with Policy D1 of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
16 |
All
building materials, rubble, timber etc from the demolition works shall be
removed from the site within one month of the start of the demolition work. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
17 |
The
development shall be limited to 67 residential units. Reason: To
ensure that the development accords with the demands this development has
placed on the infrastructure and community and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) and Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision)
of this Council's Unitary Development Plan. |
|
18 |
The
Community building hereby approved shall only be used for D1 and D2 uses,
associated to and ancillary to the community use and for no other purpose nor
Class of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order
1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument
revoking and re-enacting that Order, except with the prior consent in writing
of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The
building is for the benefit of the local community and its use in itself must
not cause any undue disturbance to the amenity of the area and to comply with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
- That a letter be sent to the applicants as follows:
"Your
attention is drawn to the possible presence of asbestos within these existing industrial
buildings and its removal will need to be carried out by a Health and Safety Executive
approved contractor under the Control of Asbestos At Work Regulations 1987 and The Asbestos (Licensing)
Regulations 1983 (as amended)."
|
6. |
TCP/25444 P/00418/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Fairlee Registration Date: 03/03/2003 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mrs C Blyth & Mr G Childs Outline for 4 dwellings; alterations to vehicular access land adjacent 13, St. Pauls View
Road, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is particularly contentious
having attracted a substantial number of representations including one from the
local Councillor.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Determination has taken 11 weeks and 2 days to
date. Officer workload and outstanding consultations mean that this Committee
is the first available at which the application can be considered.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site forms the major area of a substantial rear
garden of a detached property situated on the northern side of St Pauls View
Road, including the side garden area through to its junction with St Pauls View
Road. St Pauls View Road is a
cul-de-sac serving a total of 19 dwellings in a mixture of semi-detached,
terraced and detached, all of traditional form, with those units on the
northern side having no facility for on-site parking apart from the application
property. The garden area itself
represents the largest within St Pauls View Road, and has a maximum depth from
the back of footpath in St Pauls View Road of 75 metres to minimum depth of 52
metres. In width terms, at its
narrowest, the garden is 12.8 metres widening to 20.1 metres.
Abutting to the west is the rear garden of
property no 11 St Pauls View Road with that property being the end terrace of a
group of three, nos 7, 9 and 11 St Pauls View Road. Abutting the eastern boundary in part is the rear gardens of
properties 4, 5, 6 and 7 Howard Close with the remaining part forming part of
the side garden area of property 30 Victoria Road. The rear boundary (north western boundary) abuts rear garden
areas of properties 32, 33, 34, 35, 35a and 36 Victoria Road.
Site has a slight fall from south to north and
contains a conifer hedge along its rear boundary. Its eastern boundary is in the form of a panelled fence with
further hedge and tree planting, whilst its western boundary is in the form of
a low hedge. Number 13 has a side
access directly off St Pauls View Road.
The cul-de-sac head of St Pauls View Road has abutting it on its western
side a small tarmac raised area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This is an outline application with all matters
reserved apart from siting and means of access.
Application seeks consent for two semi-detached
one bedroomed single storey dwellings and two semi-detached two bedroomed
single storey dwellings. The two one
bedroomed dwellings are located centrally within the garden area within one
metre of the western boundary. Both
properties are provided with small garden areas, one on the eastern side and
the other on the northern side.
The second pair of dwellings is located to the
rear within the angled corner of the rear garden and the dwellings themselves
being angled to fit into that area. The
majority of the dwellings to be located approximately 1.5 metres off the rear
boundary where it abuts the properties in Victoria Road with the existing
conifer hedge being removed and replaced with a 1.8 metre high close boarded
fence. The garden areas to these
properties are both located to the south of the proposed properties.
Each property is provided with at least one
parking space with an additional space being set aside for the property no. 13
St Pauls View Road. All parking spaces
are contained within the development site.
Access to the development is off St Pauls View
Road on the eastern side of no. 13 with the access being in the form of a 4.2
metre wide access narrowing to 3.7 metres and further narrowing to 3.1 metres
towards the rear. This width of access
allows for a small margin between the eastern boundary and the proposed access
road. The turning space which serves
the proposed development has been designed to allow for possible future access
to land to the west which is the rear gardens of those properties which front
St Pauls Road.
Applicant's architect supports the application
with a short design statement as follows:
"The
above project makes use of a large unwanted garden within walking distance of
the town centre. The scheme is single
storey so as to reduce its impact on the neighbouring gardens and eliminate
overlooking. The units are small one
and two bedroomed properties which fulfill the requirements of the Housing
Needs Survey as well as the Government's requirement for making best use of
land and will be ideal for first time buyers and "key workers"."
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Application land situated within the Newport
development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Site will be deemed to be a brownfield
site. Relevant UDP policies are listed
as follows:
G4
- General Locational Criteria.
D1
- Standards of Design.
D2
- Standards for Development Within the Site.
H1
- New Development Within Main Island Towns.
H4
- Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.
TR7
- Highway Considerations for New Development.
TR16
- Parking Policies and Guidelines.
U12
- Water Supply for Fire Fighting Purposes.
National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing
the main aim of which is to ensure efficient use of urban land to take
pressures off greenfield sites but not at the expense of cramped
development. However, such development
should not be viewed in isolation but should consider the wider context having
regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape as a
whole.
The document emphasises the need to give
priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas. It also encourages wider housing
opportunities and choice with particular reference to a better mix in the size,
type and location of housing.
In this regard reference is made to a Housing
Needs Survey requirement which is referred to in PPG3. The
Council's Housing Needs Survey has identified a large portion of need
for single person accommodation although there continues to be ongoing demand
for two and three bedroomed homes.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer's comments still awaited.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Local Councillor endorses and supports
objections from residents of St Pauls View Road, and the following represents a
summary:
Proposal
is backland development.
Access
arrangements could exacerbate parking problems in St Pauls View Road.
Concern
proposal will create overlooking although accepts proposal at this stage is
outline application only.
Proposal
represents more properties adding unacceptably to the density of development in
the area.
Size
of dwellings inappropriate compared with nearby residential dwellings and the
lack of amenity area is considered unacceptable and inappropriate for the area.
Letter of objection received from Fairlee
Victoria Road Residents Association with points raised as follows:
Proposal
represents overdevelopment on a small narrow strip of land.
Proposal
will result in the loss of privacy to most residents in Victoria Road, Howard
Close and St Pauls View Road with the enjoyment of the adjoining garden areas
being compromised by reason of loss of light, noise, pollution and disturbance.
Reference
is made to the existence of a stream on the west side of the plot.
Proposal
will result in increased traffic creating even more pressures and parking
problems on the surrounding roads which are already at saturation point.
The
roads in the area are already used as a rat-run with this increasing traffic
flow thus increasing dangers to young children and elderly due to lack of
proper footpaths.
Creation
of a new access will lose existing parking spaces on opposite side of the road
in order to enable cars to drive in and out.
Unlikely
that tight turn will enable fire appliances to access the site in case of emergencies.
Disturbance
caused to neighbouring properties by cars using the access road to serve this
proposal with reference being made to noisy engines, car headlights etc.
Fourteen individual letters of objection have
been received, eleven from residents of St Pauls View Road, two from residents
of Fairlee Road and one from resident of Howard Close.
Letters reiterate most of the points raised as
above with the additional points summarised as follows:
Concerns
expressed relating to the construction quality of St Pauls View Road and
whether it can accept additional traffic.
Disturbance
and dangers caused by construction traffic.
Dangers
that additional traffic will cause to the safety of pedestrians, particularly
children and the elderly.
Proposal
will result in loss of trees.
Proposal
will put extra strain on the public services.
One
resident of Howard Close expresses concern that proposal will result in
overlooking of her property.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implication anticipated.
EVALUATION
Material considerations are as follows:
Do
the site's location and size represent appropriate land for development?
Does
the use of single storey dwellings overcome environmental problems that this
type of development can create?
Will
the proposed development result in unacceptable additional traffic using St
Pauls View Road and will it affect the parking regime within the road?
Is
the site capable of being served by emergency vehicles, particularly a fire
appliance?
Has
consideration been given to the capability of the layout being adapted to
accommodate adjoining land in the future?
Firstly, the site fully satisfies the
description of brownfield land within an urban area and therefore it provides
the potential for development subject to other factors being acceptable. Therefore, the main consideration is whether
or not it is of a sufficient size and in an appropriate location relative to
surrounding development to accept limited residential development without
impacting on the neighbouring properties.
Site is at the rear of existing properties which in the past may have
suggested that development would have been inappropriate. However, the need to make efficient use of
urban land has meant that sites such as this need to be given serious
consideration with the following being the main concerns:
Effect
on the environment of adjacent properties.
Height
and scale with avoidance of overshadowing.
Quality
of the pedestrian/vehicular access.
Consider
the potential land assembly to create a more cohesive site.
Consider
any layout should be capable of being adapted to accommodate adjoining land.
In terms of the current proposal, Members will
note that the dwellings are single storey providing modest accommodation with
that accommodation complying entirely with the Housing Needs Survey which
identifies a need for one/two bedroomed units.
Certainly this type of development is aimed at the first time
buyer.
The suitability of this type of development will
be entirely dependant on the particular circumstances of the site and in this
case, although the land area is reasonably substantial, it is its shape and
overall length which causes concern.
The proposal for four units could be deemed to be an overdevelopment
resulting in a cramped appearance. Each
of the properties has been provided with small garden areas although not in the
traditional form with those areas being to the front of the building as opposed
to the rear. Each pair is indicated to
be close to its nearby boundary and, although single storey, the two pairs will
have a visual impact on adjoining properties.
One of the prime considerations regarding any
backland development proposal such as this relates to suitability of
access. In this case there is certainly
sufficient land at the side of no. 13 St Pauls View Road to achieve an access
with that access starting off at 4.2 metres in width and reducing to 3.2 metres
in width towards the rear. Application
also indicates one parking space per unit plus a parking space for the property
no. 13. This level of parking provision
along with the access to serve those spaces coupled with the footprint coverage
of the proposed development does lead me to the view that, in this form, the
proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site.
I am satisfied that some limited development
could be accommodated and this is particularly the case if adjoining land were
to be incorporated. Land assembly is a
factor which is included in PPG3 and very often the assembly of such land can create
a more cohesive site, more able to provide flexibility in design and
layout. It should be noted that the
current proposal does indicate the possible access to future development,
however, such an access would involve loss of the two parking spaces to serve
the proposed development which, presumably, would then have to be provided
within any adjoining land should that land become available for
development.
Further important issue relates to accessibility
by emergency vehicles, particularly a fire appliance. The shape and length of the site and the positioning of the pair
of units to the rear results in a distance of approximately 50 metres from the
nearest position a fire appliance could achieve. More practically that fire appliance could go no further than St
Pauls View Road itself which increases that distance to approximately 60
metres. This compares with the minimum
hose pipe distance of 45 metres.
Therefore, again this is an indicator of the difficulties that this
proposal for four units is causing in terms of servicing those units.
In terms of the points of objection, most of
these have been addressed in the above assessment but I would comment generally
as follows:
Just
because the site is backland in character it does not prevent its development. In this case it is the number and
arrangement of the units which lead to a refusal recommendation rather than any
principle of development.
Any
development on sites such as this would be expected to accommodate its own
parking and therefore as long as that parking is in line with guidelines which,
generally, in this case would be no more than one parking space per dwelling
then that should be sufficient to service the development and not result in
additional pressures on St Pauls View Road.
It is important to appreciate that any person purchasing a property
which only has one parking space will be aware of that fact and hopefully
adjust the level of car ownership accordingly.
The
level of additional traffic which may be generated by this modest additional
development will be minimal and I would not expect the Highway Engineer to
suggest that St Pauls View Road could not accept that additional level. St Pauls View Road has a carriageway width
of approximately 6 metres which is more than adequate to cater for both the
existing development and any additional development, provided of course that
the access off St Pauls View Road is acceptable.
The
concerns relating to parking problems in St Pauls View Road are noted, however,
because of the reasons outlined above I would not consider the impact on St
Pauls View Road in traffic movement and parking terms would be a sustainable
reason to refuse.
Applicants, having been aware of the level of
objection, have reinforced their reasons for submitting the application by the
issuing of a fact sheet which is summarised as follows:
Applicants
give assurances that there is no intention to compulsory purchase adjoining
land or demolish adjoining properties.
Emphasis
that the on-road parking situation will not be affected as the proposed
dwellings will be provided with off-road parking.
Reference
made to mains drainage being available to serve the proposed development
and that any problems with regard to the existing road surface on St Pauls View
Road is not a matter which can be addressed by the applicants and is the
responsibility of the Highway Authority.
Overall
size of garden proving difficult to keep adequately maintained with there being
particular reference to the conifer hedgerow along the rear boundary.
Applicants make the following final comment:
"And
finally, nobody likes change but it is inevitable, if not by us now by the
numerous interested parties. If changes
are not made neighbours will continually be affected as nature takes
control."
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to
this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given
to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the
First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Whilst the site provides a potential for
development regardless of its backland character, I am of the view the current
proposal is unacceptable due to the level of development being proposed with
its resultant poor arrangement, both within the site and in respect of adjoining
properties, the level of parking needed in relation to the limited area
available to achieve an access, all resulting in a cramped appearance.
RECOMMENDATION -
REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The
proposal in terms of the arrangement of the four dwellings, the positioning
of the parking spaces and the resultant minimal width access represents an
overdevelopment likely to result in a cramped appearance to the detriment of
prospective occupants contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The
location of the dwellings in close proximity to both the northern and western
boundaries is likely to be overdominant and be of an overbearing nature to
the detriment of the amenities currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties
and is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
narrowness of the access drive and the positioning of the two parking spaces
immediately adjacent the western boundary will be likely to prevent the
possibility of any future extension of the development into the adjoining
land and is therefore deemed to be inefficient use of urban land contrary to
policies contained within PPG3 - Housing as issued by the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Region. |
|
7. |
TCP/02852/H P/00486/03 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 12/03/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983)
823570 Applicant: Mrs J Kalmanovitch Conversion of shop to form holiday
flat The Copper Kettle, High Street,
Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345EU |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member as he is not
prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure
as any approval will result in the loss of an important village amenity.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This application was received on 11 March 2003
and the request of the local Member to report this to Committee has taken the
determination outside the 8 weeks and, if determined tonight, will be 10 weeks.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The application relates to ground floor tea room
which is situated on eastern side of High Street immediately north of junction
with Circular Road. Property has
residential accommodation adjoining and located above. Site lies within Seaview Conservation Area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning consent granted under TCP/2852D in July
1995 for conversion of shop to form holiday flat. This consent has lapsed.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Existing tea room has floor area of some 5.5
metres by 7.5 metres and has benefit of front entrance doors onto High
Street. Premises currently operates as
tea room with small counter and food preparation area.
Application seeks to convert premises into
holiday flat comprising bedroom, lounge/diner and bathroom facility.
Application is identical to submission approved
in July 1995. The only external change
would be replacement of french windows with fixed window openings. Entrance would be gained via existing
entrance hall which provides access to residential accommodation above.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Application site lies within development
envelope boundary for Seaview and is centrally located within Conservation
Area. Premises not allocated for any
specific purpose within adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Retail policies within Unitary Development Plan
relate in the main to defined shopping areas and given that Seaview has no such
designation are not therefore directly relevant to consideration of this
application.
Policy R2 - whilst relating to new retail
development does include within policy text advice concerning loss of local
shops. Text points out that village
local shops play a vital role in rural areas as they provide alternative to
shopping in main towns, as well as much needed service for less mobile. Council consider it important to resist loss
of local shops, particularly to residential uses where there are no suitable
alternatives close-by. In dealing with
applications involving loss of local community facilities including shops and
pubs, the Council will expect evidence to be submitted to show that business is
not viable and that alternative means for retention have been explored. This will require an assessment of the
viability of alternative uses, the continued local support for such community
need and presence of similar facilities in locality, their accessibility to
local people and the impact on other elements of the local economy i.e.
tourism.
Housing Policy H4 advises that planning
applications for new residential development including conversion on sites not
allocated within the Plan will be acceptable in principle where they are within
development envelopes for defined settlements.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer raises no comment on this
application.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Parish Council object to application which
results in further loss of amenity within Seaview village where a number of
business premises is at very low level.
Furthermore there are already too many holiday properties in the area.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
None at time of preparing report.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to
comment but no observations have been received.
EVALUATION
As detailed in policy section, retail policies
contained within UDP relate in the main to defined shopping areas and are not
directly relevant to application site given that Seaview has no such designated
area. Text attached to Policy R2 seeks
to resist loss of important local shops and facilities, however, it should be
appreciated that this approach is more appropriately aimed at seeking to retain
local shops which provide an essential service to the local community and are
supported by the community which they serve.
Current operation of premises as tea room does not, it is considered,
fall within this category of operation.
Furthermore, use is not seen as providing an essential service to local
community and it is fair to assume that operation is more attuned to tourist
economy than local clientele.
Whilst loss of commercial premises is
regrettable, in view of the above comments I do not consider there are
sustainable reasons to object to proposal particularly as property itself is
unallocated for any specific purpose with the Unitary Development Plan.
Members' attention is also drawn to previous
decision on this particular site and other similar proposals in locality.
Application site under consideration identical
application was granted consent in July 1995 with restriction that
accommodation should only be used for holiday purposes and not occupied by any
person, family or groups of people for a period exceeding six weeks in any twelve
month period. With regards wider
locality consent granted in September 1996 for conversion of estate agents
office to dwelling when similar policy considerations were outlined to Members
in report prepared at that time. More
recently Members may recall that application seeking change of use from former
antique shop to holiday unit was approved in November 2001 at location close to
application site.
Change of use itself will not have any adverse
impact on character or appearance of Conservation Area.
Finally, with regard to lack of parking, given
previous use of premises and reduced parking standards adopted within Unitary
Development Plan proposal is an area where no provision for off-street parking
is acceptable in policy terms.
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
application 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 on 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.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this
report I am of the opinion that there is no sustainable planning objection to
alternative use of premises as residential holiday unit and recommend
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The
occupation hereby approved shall only be used for holiday purposes and shall
not be occupied by any person, family or groups of people for a period
exceeding six weeks in any twelve month period without the prior consent of
the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The
standard of accommodation is not, in the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority, adequate to allow permanent all-year round occupation and to
accord with Policy D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8. |
TCP/15845/A P/00462/03 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 10/03/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Garbetts Chartered Accountants Change of use from residential to
(class A2) financial & professional services with parking 6 New Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle
Of Wight, PO360DT |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application raises conflicting policies
contained in the Unitary Development Plan.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of
the application has taken 10 weeks to date. The application has gone beyond the
prescribed time limits due to negotiations with agent to obtain further
information regarding highway issues and this being the earliest meeting
following receipt of a revised plan and highway comments.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is located on the southern side of New
Road approximately 35 metres east of the junction where New Road meets The
Mall. To the immediate west is land within the applicants ownership currently
operating as financial and professional services office with parking. The site
is located in close proximity to residential properties in an area with mixed
uses, predominantly commercial to the north, residential to the east.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/4039/D - Alterations and change of use of
ground floor from show room, office, warehouse and distribution to professional
and financial services (Class A2), Arnold House, 2 New Road, Brading. Approved
October 2000.
TCP/15846/A - Change of use from residential to
Class 2 financial and professional services, 4 New Road, Brading. Approved June
2002.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The proposal seeks consent for a change of use
from residential to (Class A2) financial and professional services with
parking. Numbers 2 and 4 New Road are in use as Accountants office. Revised
plans show parking spaces and turning with the construction of a 600 mm high
fence along part of the frontage adjoining the highway. The existing access to
number 2 will be utilised. Proposal will result in additional 64 m2 of floor
space and 5 new employees.
Internal layout is to provide an additional two
offices and store at ground floor with two offices and staff toilet at first
floor. Letter accompanying application states that the application would
provide additional linked office space to cater for the increased level of
business and staff requirements. The premises would be occupied by a current
accountancy practice from Ryde who are in partnership with applicant and this
would therefore free up their current premises which may well revert back to a
residential property. Furthermore the release of a potential residential
property in Ryde would help to offset the loss of a small semi-detached
premises in Brading and balance the general stock of residential property on
the Island.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The application site is within the development
envelope and conservation area for Brading. Policies G1 - Development envelopes
for towns and villages, D1 - Standards of design, D4 - External building works,
G10 - Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding
uses, B6 - Protection and enhancement of conservation areas, H8 - Loss of
dwellings, E6 - Expansion of existing industry and offices and TR7 - Highway
considerations for new development are relevant.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to
conditions.
Environmental Health make no comment.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
None received.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
The site is within the development envelope and
Brading conservation area in mixed use area. Main planning considerations
relate to impact on amenities of locality in general and surrounding
residential occupiers, loss of existing dwellings, expansion of existing office
creating additional job opportunities, effect on character/appearance of
conservation area and highway safety.
The original accountants office occupied 2 New Road and then incorporated 4 New Road
having gained consent in June 2002. Number 4 New Road, the adjoining semi, was
previously a residential property. The previous application for number 4
included removing a small section of wall and fencing to allow improved
visibility to the forecourt to the adjacent accountants premises and at the
time the Highway Engineer made no comment.
The Highway Engineer has requested the
reconstruction of boundary treatment in this application over part of the
frontage to prevent illegal vehicular access.
The site is located in close proximity to
residential properties in an area with mixed uses. In balancing the loss of
residential accommodation and the expansion of the existing office, it is
relevant that this is a mixed area. The proposal is unlikely to present an
adverse impact on the amenities of the area given the proposed office use.
Revised parking arrangements are acceptable subject to conditions and the
proposal will not adversely affect the appearance of the conservation area. The
expansion of an existing business is considered acceptable balanced against the
loss of residential.
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 application 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 on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight
to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal is for an
appropriate use, appropriately sited and recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The use of
no. 6 New Road as offices shall not be brought into use until a turning space
is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in
forward gear in accordance with details shown on the approved plan. This space shall thereafter always be kept
available for such use. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of five parking
spaces (including the two in front of No. 2 New Road) have been provided
within the curtilage of the site.
Thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such
purposes as shown on the approved plan. Reason:
To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7
(Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The 600 mm
high fence shown on drawing number 03/DD/03 - 1 Rev A shall be constructed
and retained thereafter within two months of the date of this permission. Reason: In
the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The buildings
and site outlined in red and blue on the plan accompanying this decision
shall only be used for the purpose of financial and professional services
office and for no other type of office or purpose (including A1) without the
prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and to enable the Local Planning
Authority to assess potential conflict of uses now that the site area has
intensified and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy G10
(Potential Conflict Between proposed Development and Existing Surrounding
Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9. |
TCP/19203/J P/00364/03 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 24/02/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr A Southwell Removal of temporary container
storage; construction of storage building Oasis Interior Landscapes,
Carpenters Road, Brading, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360QA |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member as he is not
prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure
on the basis that Brading Town Council is against the development of this site
which originally began as an agricultural outlet.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application. Processing of this application has taken
twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit, this being
the first available meeting following local Member's request for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to retail outlet situated on
northern side of Carpenters Road approximately some 300 metres west of junction
with Ryde - Brading road (A3055). Site
presently comprises original glasshouse comprising three sections and more
recent brick built front extension facing road frontage.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning consent granted in January 1991 for
construction of glasshouse for specialist interior plants and formation of car
park (TCP/19203D).
Extension and new entrance to front of display
area, cafe/classroom extension to side of building and provision of 43 parking
spaces approved in July 1993 (TCP/19203E).
Extension on front of building to increase
display area, provision of cafe/classroom and new entrance and provision of 38
car parking spaces and landscaping approved August 1994 under TCP/19203F. This decision required the revocation of the
earlier consent TCP/19203E.
More recently planning consent granted in April
2002 for alterations to outside seating area (TCP/19203G).
Application for coach parking bay was refused in
April 2002 (TCP/19203H).
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Originally submitted proposal sought consent for
construction of metal clad rear extension measuring 47.3 metres in length by
7.25 metres in width and height to ridge approximately 6.25 metres above ground
level.
Subsequently proposal has been revised to
incorporate smaller rear extension now measuring some 36.25 metres in length
with height to ridge of approximately 5.25 metres. Whilst width remains as previously submitted reduction in length
of extension mirrors length of front brick built extension previously added to
main glasshouse structure.
Proposal also involves removal of existing
storage container located in north western corner of site.
Proposal now also incorporates cladding to side
of existing glasshouses in matching material to the used and proposed
extension. Revised plans also indicate
intention to plant landscaping strip along western boundary of site which
currently presents open aspect.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The following policies of UDP are considered
relevant:
G5
- Development Outside Defined Settlements
D1
- Standards of Design
E8
- Employment in the Countryside
T1
- The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season
T2
- Tourist Related Development
T8
- Ancillary Development Associated with Tourism Uses
C1
- Protection of Landscape Character
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer considers proposal raises no
highway implications.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
In respect of originally submitted proposal the
Town Council strongly oppose application for following reasons:
Development
occurs outside development envelope for Brading, is in conflict with Policy D1
and will be detrimental to visual amenity of area and not of a height, scale or
mass which is compatible to surrounding buildings.
Overdevelopment
of site.
Development
is in conflict with Policy R15 of the Unitary Development Plan. Assuming that smaller vehicles are used at
present to deliver goods from three smaller warehouses, the development will
generate an increase in large vehicles accessing the site. Taking into account the development of a
major golf course on the site opposite, the generation of traffic in this area
will cause a hazard to users of the highway and be totally inappropriate in
this rural area.
Development
will significantly harm landscape, it will be seen clearly from surrounding areas
as it is higher and longer than the original building.
They also point out that landscaping required by
previous application has not yet been fully undertaken.
With regard to the revised plans the Town
Council remain opposed:
"We
appreciate that the height and general size of the development has decreased
but we remain concerned that the construction will still be clearly visible
from Carpenters Road and that the road is unsuitable for large container
lorries that will be delivering to the business".
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Council for the Protection of Rural England
support application and its potential reduction in juggernaut traffic near
centre of Ryde with the removal of stores from Ryde location is welcomed. Their reservation is in design of proposed
building. It will be higher than
existing Oasis building, extend beyond it and be clad in different profiled
steel cladding which will make it prominent and ugly as viewed from both
Carpenters Road and main Ryde - Brading road.
This is an attractive rural site and proposal should be redesigned to
produce more sympathetic extension to premises.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
The relevant Officer has been given the
opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.
EVALUATION
Main planning considerations relate to
appropriateness of intensification and consolidation of usage on site and
appropriateness of development in countryside, particularly in relation to
visual impact together with highway issues.
Establishment of use of this site followed grant
of consent in January 1991 on basis of production and propagation of plants
which is horticultural activity.
Consent for building was required as its floor space exceeded permitted
development limits and at time it was made clear that direct sales to public
will not be encouraged and building was not proposed to be used as a garden
centre. Conditions were imposed to
limit car parking at site as a disincentive to casual passer-by who might visit
site. Main aims of business was to
propagate and consolidate growth of tropical and exotic indoor plants for
subsequent placement in commercial premises.
Whilst it was recognised that members of the public would visit site to
gain further information regarding produce there would be limited sales,
however, it was applicant's intention not to market produce in a way that would
be associated with other garden centres on Island.
When considering 1993 application for extension
to premises report to Members made clear that extent of business concerning
hire of plants from local companies was not as great as originally hoped and
that plants kept in glasshouse were available for sale, either to companies or
public. Also offered for sale were
items such as dried flowers/plants/plant containers etc, however, site did not
appear to operate as a garden centre insofar as it did not offer for sale items
such as garden furniture, mowing equipment, tools, growing aids etc. Report also pointed out business being
carried out on site was not exactly the same as which was described to Planning
Authority at time that planning approval was granted. Public access to building was greater than originally anticipated
and increased car parking provision clearly reflected greater public access to
site. Additional floor space was
supported on the grounds of providing cafe/classroom area thereby not resulting
in increasing floor space available for sale/display. In visual terms extension was seen as an improvement to original
glasshouse building on site.
Commercial activity on site would appear to have
been accepted by Planning Authority in view of previous approvals on site for
extensions. Given this situation main
considerations
therefore relate to appropriateness of further
extension in terms of visual impact and implications on character of area and
highway matters.
Proposed extension is attached to rear of main
premises and whilst projecting from ends of existing glasshouse structure by
approximately 3 metres, a similar distance to the projection on the front brick
built extension approved in 1994.
Members should appreciate that existing glasshouse structure is
relatively conspicuous given its bright white finish and applicant is proposing
to clad end elevations in identical material to that to be used for proposed
extension, i.e. steel panelled cladding thereby reducing visual impact of
existing structure. Members should also
appreciate that site to rear comprises significant woodland screen as a result
of which site is open to view from front and side. In view of extent of existing buildings on site it is only
considered that the additional build will not impact to such an unacceptable
extent as to warrant refusal of application on this issue alone. Extension would not be readily visible when
viewed from front given 1994 extension approved and built and it should also be
noted that eastern boundary to site is landscaped with conifers and applicant
is willing to landscape western boundary to reduce visual impact.
With regards highway issue, whilst proposal may
involve large lorries visiting application site this should be balanced against
alternative arrangements which currently require storage areas in Ryde and
onward shipment to application site.
Proposal may therefore be seen as more sustainable in terms of reduced
traffic movements and whilst proposal may involve larger lorries routing to
application site, site is accessed from classified roads and Highway Engineer
has raised no issue on this matter.
In support of application agent states that
storage on site is logistically more efficient and will dramatically cut heavy
goods traffic in centre of Ryde, whilst centralising store facilities would
create two additional full-time jobs. He has confirmed that building will only
be used for storage purposes.
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
application 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 on 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 site represents an established
commercial/tourist related attraction offering somewhat unique service in terms
of goods provided. The additional
storage facilities on site are considered appropriate for this operation and
will not unduly impact on visual amenity of area with storage on site offering
on balance sufficient highway advances in terms of sustainability to warrant a
recommendation for approval.
RECOMMENDATION -
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The
building hereby approved shall only be used for ancillary storage purposes in
connection with the main premises to which it attaches and for no other
purpose without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
accord with the terms of the submitted application and to reflect Unitary
Development Plan Policy R2 which seeks to limit new retail developments to
defined town centre shopping areas. |
|
3 |
The
extension hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the external
finish shown on the approved plans has been completed both on the extension
and the existing greenhouses and shall be maintained thereafter in a matt
finish. 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. |
PART IV
REPORTS - ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS
(a) TCP/10524A UNAUTHORISED
ALTERATIONS TO OPEN UP VEHICULAR ACCESS, LAND ADJACENT 22 HOWGATE ROAD,
BEMBRIDGE.
Summary
To consider whether the circumstances justify the
service of an enforcement notice requiring the closure of the vehicular access
and the reinstatement of the land to its original condition.
Background
The site is a strip of land approximately 3.0 metres
in width and located along the side property boundary of 22 Howgate Road. The land was until recently covered in dense
ground vegetation with trees. In
January 2002 following an enquiry the Local Planning Authority wrote informing
the owners of the land that the intention to create a vehicle access on the
land from Howgate Road would require planning permission as Howgate Road was a
classified road.
A planning application was subsequently submitted
which identified the application site as the strip of land and that ground to
the rear of 22 and 24 Howgate Road. On
2 July 2002 under the Delegated Powers Procedure planning permission was
refused for the alterations to open up a vehicular access. The reasons for refusal were firstly, that
the provision of a vehicular access on the narrow strip of land would likely to
require re-profiling and surfacing of the land and prejudice the well being of
the existing trees that contribute significantly to the amenity value of the
area, and its use as a wildlife corridor and would therefore be contrary to
policies D1 and C2. Secondly, the
proposed access was considered unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate
visibility for vehicles leaving the access to enter Howgate Road and therefore
contrary to policy TR7.
In September 2003, the Owners Solicitors wrote to the
Local Planning Authority advising that Howgate Road is not a classified road
and therefore the creation of a vehicular access within the curtilage of a
dwelling house would not have required planning permission. The Solicitors pointed out that the issue is
not the creation of a new access but using an existing one and the refusal of
planning permission was of no effect and that the owners were at liberty to
carry on using the existing access. In
response the Local Planning Authority responded confirming that Howgate is not
a classified road but that the land did not fall within a domestic curtilage
and accordingly the formation of an access does not fall within the sphere of
permitted development as set out in Class B Part 2 of the Town and Country
Planning (General permitted Development) Order 1995. It was also suggested that if there was a claim regarding a
previous access this should be investigated and the appropriate evidence
brought forward.
In March 2003 the owners’ Agent wrote to the Highways
Section seeking clarification on whether planning permission is required to
reopen an exiting access onto an unclassified road. The Highways Section subsequently responded stating that whilst
the proposed
access is unsatisfactory because of inadequate
visibility planning permission would not be required for the construction of a
private vehicular access because Howgate Road is an unclassified road.
In April 2003 the Enforcement Section was advised that
work had started on site clearing a number of trees. The complainant suggested that this was the first step towards
forming an access. Contact with the
Owners’ solicitors indicated that his client was intending to form an access
relying on the Highways letter which stated that planning permission was not
required.
On Thursday 24 April 2003 a letter was faxed to the
owners solicitors and posted stating the following points.
(a) that the formation of an access was not permitted
development but required the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.
(b) that the letter from the Highways Section did not
override this basic principle.
(c) that his client should make a further planning
application seeking to overcome the original reasons for refusal or
(d) that if his client believes, planning permission
is not required because it is permitted development or that an original access
was in place that they should seek a Lawful Development Certificate.
(e) that in the absence of either a planning
permission or a Lawful Development Certificate that the Local Planning
Authority would consider any works to form an access as unauthorised and would
respond accordingly.
On the following Monday the Local Planning Authority
was advised that the work had started over the weekend. A site visit by an Enforcement Officer
revealed that the Owners had commenced work on constructing the access onto
Howgate Road by the removal of trees and vegetative ground cover and that the
ground had been excavated forming a ramp up from the road. The owners’ Solicitors have been notified
that the matter is to be reported to Development Control Committee and invited
to submit any further information that they would like Members to consider at
the Meeting.
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are
considered to apply
Strategic Policies
S4 : the countryside will be protected from
inappropriate development
S6 : All development will be expected to be of a high
standard of design
S10 : In areas of designated or defined scientific,
nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development
will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special
character of these areas.
Detailed Policies
G4 : General Locational Criteria
G5 : Development Outside Defined Settlements
D1 : Standards of Design
D2 : Standards for development within the site
C1 : Protection of Landscape Character
C2 : Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
C12 : Development affecting Trees and Woodland
TR7 : Highways Considerations for New Development.
Financial Implications
None
Options
2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the
closure of the vehicular access and the reinstatement of the ground back to its
original levels. Time for compliance.
One Month
Conclusion
The material considerations that are relevant to this
matter are as follows. The development
of the access would provide vehicular access to land that is attached to the
rear of 24 Howgate Road but does not form part of its domestic curtilage. Accordingly the formation of an access does
not fall within the sphere of permitted development as set out Class B Part 2
of the General Permitted Order and the formal consent of the Local Planning
Authority is required. The owners’
solicitors were made aware of this prior to works commencing on the site. They were advised not to rely on the letter
from the Highways Section.
The access is located within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. The development of the
land would lead to a significant reduction in amenity value of the area and it
uses as a wildlife corridor and would not enhance the wider landscape quality.
A further concern is that of highway safety. The Highways Department view on the earlier
application is that the proposal had implications affecting highway visibility
and recommended refusal.
The weight of available information would suggest that
the breach of planning control could not easily be overcome by the imposition
of planning conditions to ameliorate the concerns of the Local Planning
Authority. I am therefore of the
opinion that the Local Planning Authority would be justified in serving an
enforcement notice to remedy the breach of planning control.
Human Rights
In coming to the recommendations to pursue enforcement
action considerations 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 development
on the immediate area has been carefully considered. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of
the Council as expressed through PPG 18 and the Unitary Development and is in
the wider public interest.
Recommendation
To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the closure of the vehicular access and the reinstatement of the ground back to its original levels. Time for compliance. One Month
Head of Planning Services