PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

           TCP/24747/A                                     Mr A Naylor against refusal of outline for residential development, land adjoining Pine View, Rue Street, Gurnard, Cowes.

           TCP/17850/A                                     Mr D J & Mrs V A Harman against refusal for formation of vehicular access & hardstanding at Brookside, Main Road, Chillerton.

           TCP/25120                                        Mr G Skinner against refusal for two storey rear extension to form lounge and bedrooms, 16 Downsview Road, St. Helens.

           TCP/15133/J                                      Mr R Ruffell against refusal for terrace of four houses with access off Buckingham Road,land adjacent Ryde Court, St. Thomas Street , Ryde.

           TCP/19269/D                                     Mr S Read against refusal for siting of mobile home for use as holiday accommodation, land at Fairfields Farm, Stroud Wood Road, Ryde.

2.        HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

           No new dates to report

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

           (a)       TCP/1152/E                           Mr A Macleod against refusal for two storey extension at Meadcott, Heathfield Road, Bembridge.

           Officer Recommendation:               Refusal.

           Committee Decision:                       Refusal (Part 1) - 29 October 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                             Dismissed - 23 April 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The full two storey nature of the extension and its length and width would significantly increase the bulk and mass of the existing dwelling.

           •          The development would not be particularly subservient in relation to the existing dwelling.

           •          The building would be an overbearing and incongruous feature in contrast to the relatively modest adjacent bungalow.

           •          The proposal is not a matter of statistical calculations but one of judging the visual effect of the proposal and calculations of site coverage do not lend any significant support to the proposal.

           •          The main concern is the visual relationship between the appeal property and the adjacent bungalow.

           •          The mismatch in terms of scale and bulk between the two properties would be detrimental to the character and appearance of Heathfield Road.

....................................................................................................................................................

           (b)       TCP/16686/A                         Mr & Mrs K Aptomas against refusal for a dwelling & garage at land between Abbey Oaks & La Casita, Hamstead Road, Cranmore.

           Officer Recommendation:               Refusal.

           Committee Decision:                       Refusal (Part 1) - 27 August 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                             Dismissed - 29 April 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to the AONB.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The site is undeveloped land between two dwellings in the AONB.

           •          The proposal would result in the opening up of the plot, removing many of the trees and introducing an additional dwelling in this location.

           •          The site should be viewed in the context of the whole extent of the “plotland” area.

           •          Given the sporadic and scattered form of development in the area, the appeal site is not a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.

           •          The proposed development would create a residential curtilage in the AONB and would result in an urbanising effect on the rural scene.

           •          Residential development would consolidate the loose-knit settlement pattern which would be detrimental to the rural character of the area.

           •          The scheme is not acceptable infilling and would conflict with UDP policies.

....................................................................................................................................................

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.