REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION
– 21 MAY 2004
|
3. |
TCP/09028/N P/00020/04 Parish/Name: Gurnard Registration
Date: 23/01/2004 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Outline
for a dwelling land
adjacent The Old Barn, Rew Street, Cowes, PO31 |
In accordance with the usual procedure this report has
been updated following the decision by Members to defer consideration in order
to visit the site. Development Control Manager has also inserted additional
advice on the interpretation and application of policy in this particular case.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Member, Councillor Mundy, has requested that
application is considered by Committee shortly after publicity of the
application, he lodged a letter of support on grounds that the design of the
proposed building would blend in extremely well.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the processing of which
has taken 15 weeks and 5 days to date.
The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week
period for determination of planning application because of Officer workload
and the need for Committee consideration.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to a rectangular shaped site
currently used for agricultural purposes.
It is located on the western side of Rew Street, approximately 85 metres
north of its junction with West View Road and immediately south of a converted
barn. Directly opposite is Rew Street
Farmhouse, being a substantial property constructed of natural stone. Rew Street can be described as a rural lane
comprising of small scattered groups of dwellings with occasional properties sporadically
sited in between.
Immediate area of interest has frontage of some 300
metres on western side of Rew Street, immediately north of West View Road. This comprises of eight properties fronting
onto Rew Street. Six of these form a
smaller group some 130 metres north of application site and are therefore
regarded as visually independent from the plot in question. The application site is situated in a 60
metre wide gap between the converted barn and a modern detached bungalow.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/9028K/M/2945 - Outline for dwelling. Consent refused August 1987.
TCP/9028L/M/3614 - Outline for dwelling and
garage. Consent refused January 1988.
TCP/9028M/M/4995 - Outline for dwelling and
garage. Refused August 1988 and
dismissed on appeal in June 1989.
All applications were refused on grounds of policy and
principle owing to the site being outside of the development envelope.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This is an outline application requesting that matters
of external appearance, siting and means of access are considered at this
stage. Plans show an irregular shaped
building, part single and part two storey.
The dwelling itself would be "T" shaped and have the
appearance of a barn. Connected to the
foot of the "T" would be a single storey wing comprising of two
stables, tack room and office. The
proposed building would mainly be clad in weather boarding on a natural stone
plinth under a clay tiled roof.
Prior to consideration of the application at the last
meeting further representations were received from the applicant's agent addressing
two specific issues:
…,treated effluent
from the septic tank should be dispersed within the boundaries of the plot and
should not widely affect other properties in Rew Street.
If this were not considered
acceptable, land owner would be prepared to connect into mains drain which lies
within Rew Street although it is not located immediately adjacent to the
boundary of the site.
A further comment on these issues appears in the
evaluation section of this amended report.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is outside of any development envelope boundary
defined on the Unitary Development Plan.
The following policies of the Plan are considered to be relevant:
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.
G2 - Consolidation and
infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes.
G5 - Development outside
defined settlements.
D1 -
Standards of Design.
D2 -
Standards for development within the site.
H9 -
Residential development outside development boundaries.
B2 -
Settings of Listed Buildings.
C1 -
Protection of landscape character.
TR7 -
Highways considerations for new development.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of
inadequate access and traffic generation.
The Council's Conservation Officer makes the following
comment:
"I appreciate that this is an outline application, but it is
difficult to judge the size and scale of the proposed building in relation to
the existing buildings, which are not indicated on the plans. My impression is that the proposal would be
significantly larger and may therefore dominate the existing buildings.
I am concerned that the proposed dwelling would extend the residential
curtilage and associated clutter and would adversely affect the rural setting
of the Listed farm buildings. The new
building would also be a prominent feature in views of the Listed Buildings
from the south. Boundary treatments,
possible outbuildings, hard surfacing and residential clutter would also need
to be carefully controlled."
Contamination Officer recommends conditions should
consent be granted.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gurnard Parish Council object on grounds that the site
is outside the development envelope, inadequate access onto a bend, out of
keeping with surrounding dwellings, and land stability concerns owing to
proximity to pond.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Local Member supports on grounds that the proposal
would, in his opinion, blend in extremely well.
Four letters received objecting on grounds which can
be summarised as follows:
·
Contrary to Development
Plan policy.
·
Plans are inadequate to
show accurate relationship with adjoining converted barn.
·
Questions suitability of
proposed drainage scheme.
·
Proposed modern development would be out of context with nearby
historic buildings, particularly the
adjoining Listed barn conversion.
·
Hazardous access onto bend.
Three letters received expressing support on grounds
that the proposal would enhance rather than detract from the current
environment, that the access has excellent views in both directions and that
this proposal would constitute infill.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
This is a relatively straightforward application for a
new dwelling within the countryside outside the development envelope boundary
which should be refused permission in accordance with national, strategic and
local planning policies since there are no compelling reasons to set aside the
restrictive policies outside the development envelope.
In the event the application was reported to the
Committee at the request of the local Member on the basis that he lodged a
letter of support for the proposed development on the grounds that the design
of the building “would blend in extremely well”. Notwithstanding the decision
taken to report the matter to the Committee it is my view that justification
for determination by Members as opposed to dealing with the matter under the
delegated arrangements put forward by the local Members was insufficient as it
fails to address the primary considerations and instead focuses on what is best
described as secondary issues.
Members who sit on this Committee and have undertaken
the relevant training will be familiar with Section 54A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Where, in making any
determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development
Plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the Plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
In applying this requirement to this particular
scenario it is clear that applications which are not in accordance with the
relevant policies in the Plan should not be allowed unless material
considerations justify granting a planning permission. It is apparent to the
professional officers that any other material considerations should only be
given very minimal weight and that the application should be determined in
accordance with the Unitary Development Plan and refused permission.
If the Committee were to effectively disregard the
requirement placed on them by the Planning Act and grant approval for other
reasons then the Council, as Local Planning Authority, would be vulnerable to
an application for judicial review from those opposed to the development of the
site.
The relevant policies in this particular case are
outlined in the earlier part of the report. It is apparent that there is a need
to highlight the key policies and to analyse how they should be applied in this
particular case to support the argument that the application should be
determined in accordance with the development plan (i.e. the UDP).
In terms of national policy Members will be familiar
with PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social
Development). This policy is presently under review resulting in the
publication of the draft consultation paper, now known as the Planning Policy
Statement last year which identifies, in terms of national planning policy a number
of key principles that planning authorities should adhere to in their approach
to development control in rural areas. One of the key principles is
particularly relevant to this case:
New development away
from existing developments, or outside areas allocated for development in
development plans, should be strictly controlled; in particular, isolated new
houses in the countryside require special justification.
This policy is reflected in our own strategic policies
which require new development to be concentrated within existing urban areas
and to ensure that the countryside is protected from inappropriate development.
Land outside development envelope boundaries is considered to be countryside
where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies, will be
resisted. This is linked to Policy G2 that clearly states that proposals for
development which will lead to the consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low
density development in the countryside will not be permitted.
The presence of existing development in the
countryside, even substantial residential estates or areas of ribbon
development such as Rew Street, is not itself considered a reason for accepting
further development, which could cause an undesirable urbanisation of rural areas.
However it has to be recognised that some forms of
development should be allowed to take place in the countryside and Policy G5
addresses this issue highlighting that development may exceptionally be
permitted where it requires a rural location or is of benefit to the rural
economy. This particular policy sets out a lengthy criteria in terms of the
various categories of development that may be permitted within the countryside;
this criteria does not include large new dwellings unrelated to the needs of
agriculture or forestry or especially well designed buildings.
For obvious reasons there is continual pressure to
develop in the countryside and it is important to ensure that only those
developments and uses which cannot satisfactorily be accommodated within the
development envelopes or which genuinely require a countryside location for
their operation, are considered justifiable exceptions outside the defined
settlements.
It is arguable that the key policy to this particular
determination is the interpretation and application of Policy H9
(Residential Development Outside
Development Boundaries). Once again this policy adopts the basic premise that
planning applications for new residential development outside the development
envelope boundaries will not be permitted unless there is a particular
justification set out in the relevant criteria.
a)
a replacement of
similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling; or
b)
An essential
dwelling for an agriculture unit, of appropriate size for the farming operation
where a functional need is proven; or
c)
For the conversion
of a rural building, provided no other alternative use if feasible; or
d)
Essential to the
operation of an approved tourist use; or
e)
A specific locally
affordable housing scheme; or
f)
The acceptable infilling
of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.
Members should note that the above criteria does not
include reference to the low agricultural value of the land, the likelihood of
the land being developed for a use appropriate in a countryside area or an
inference of the large well designed dwelling would be appropriate and should
be treated as an exception to the normal restrictive policies.
If you analyse the criteria in relation to this
particular case it quickly becomes apparent that the proposed development does
not ‘fit’ any of the aforementioned criteria.
Rew Street is a scattered settlement of numerous
properties and farmholdings in several small groups along a country road in
generally open and attractive countryside.
The application site is at the northern end of the largest central group
of properties which, although generally built up, does in my opinion still retain a predominantly
rural character. This is particularly
the case where the application site is concerned as the proposed plot comprises
of a large gap between a converted barn and a bungalow, immediately behind a
restored pond. Having regard to the scattered
layout of dwellings along this immediate section of Rew Street together with
the overall width of application site and vacant land to the south, it is my
opinion that the proposal does not constitute acceptable infilling and is
therefore in conflict with Policy H9.
If for any reason Members have reservations about the
officers interpretation and application of policy and the recommendation to
refuse permission then attention is drawn to the substantial number of similar
cases where the Council have refused permission and this decision has been
upheld by an independent inspector by dismissing a subsequent appeal. It is
accepted that every application is judged on its individual merits but it is
submitted that the following cases bear a number of similarities with the
application presently under consideration particularly on the issue of
infilling outside the development envelope in connection with the application
of Policy H9. Doubtless Members will be familiar with the some of these
applications
Land
between West View and Swans Nest, Winford Road, Newchurch, Sandown - Dismissed 23/02/04
Land
at The Mount, Shanklin Road, Sandford, Godshill - Dismissed 13/01/04
Land
forming part of the curtilage of 7 Upper Hyde Lane, Shanklin - Dismissed 22/12/03
Land
adjacent Marshlands, Afton Road, Freshwater - Dismissed 12/12/03
Land
at 314 Gunville Road, Newport - Dismissed 20/11/03
Land
adjacent 116 Victoria Avenue, Shanklin - Dismissed 17/11/03
Land
at Green House, Maythorne Way, Luccombe, Shanklin - Dismissed 24/10/03
These decisions as well as this present recommendation
are indicative of a consistent approach taken by officers, and Members when the
application is determined by this Committee, when dealing with applications for
new residential development in the countryside. They show that our policies are
sufficiently robust and providing they are interpreted and applied in an
appropriate manner they will be supported by the Planning Inspectorate.
Policy TR7 states that development shall be served by
safe and acceptable access. The Highway
Engineer considers this not to be the case owing to inadequate visibility and
generation of traffic.
Members will note that the converted barn immediately
north of the application site is Listed.
Policy B2 refers to settings of Listed Buildings and states that
proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or the curtilage
of a Listed Building will not be permitted.
The submitted indicative plan shows that design of the proposed dwelling
would reflect the barn-like appearance of nearby farm buildings and may appear
acceptable in this respect. It is
appreciated that this is an outline application, but it is difficult to judge
the size and scale of the proposed building in relation to the existing
buildings which are not indicated on the submitted plans. It would appear that the proposed dwelling
would be significantly larger and may therefore dominate the adjoining Listed
Building. I am also concerned that the
proposed development would extend the residential curtilage and associated
paraphernalia and therefore adversely affect the rural setting of the nearby
Listed farm buildings. I am therefore
of the opinion that the proposed development conflicts with Policy B2.
Concern has been expressed regarding adequacy of
drainage system and suitability of building in proximity to a pond. Neither of these are considered worthy of
separate reasons for refusal as both can
be dealt with at the Building Control stage.
Building Control Surveyor has confirmed that the distance between
proposal and pond together with appropriately designed foundations would render
any ground stability concerns as insignificant.
Notwithstanding observations in relation to planning
policy and in response to the late representations submitted by the applicant's
agent the view is taken that if a connection to the main drain is not possible
that drainage issues could be overcome by installing either a septic tank,
subject to ground conditions in the area, or a sealed cesspool. This is a
matter which would need to be addressed under the Building Regulations. In a
different context the applicants offer to enter into a covenant on the land
does not represent an appropriate method to safeguard against future
development proposals on adjacent or within the vicinity of this site. It is a
clear that a Section 106 Agreement to restrict further development would e very
difficult to defend should there be a future challenge.
This is a very firm recommendation to refuse
permission for the reasons clearly set out and specified in this updated
report. The proposal to develop a house in this countryside location unrelated
to the needs of agriculture potentially represents, if approved, a blatant
disregard for local planning policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan
where any other material considerations, in my view, clearly could not outweigh
the primacy of the development plan. It is for this reason in combination with
the objection on highway grounds and the potential to adversely affect the
setting of a listed building that there is a very strong recommendation to
refuse permission.
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 Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the
material considerations discussed in this report, the proposal would represent
unacceptable development in the countryside, as well as adding unduly to the
hazards of other highway users. In the
absence of further information, it is also considered that the proposal would
adversely affect the setting of the adjoining Listed Building. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Unitary Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION
- Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the
proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of development would
be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to
Strategic Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and Policies
G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and
Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes), G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development) and G5 (Development Outside
Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The site lies outside the defined development envelope and no
justification has been established to show why the proposal should be
permitted as acceptable development in the countryside as defined in Policy
G5 (Development outside Defined Settlements) and is therefore contrary to
Strategic Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and Policies
H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) and G1
(Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
In the absence of a suitable street scene showing the relationship
between the proposed dwelling and the adjoining Listed barn conversion, it is
considered that the proposal would compromise the character and quality of
this Listed Building and would therefore be contrary to Policy B2 (Settings
of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Generation
of Traffic - onto public high - Z11B |
|
5 |
The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by
reason of unacceptable visibility and would therefore be contrary to Policy
TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
Head of Planning
Services