REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION
– 21 MAY 2004
1. TCP/2700/F – P/02228/03
Demolition Of existing building; construction of 4/5 storey building to form 7 flats with retail unit on ground floor, 9 Pier Street, Sandown
Summary
To consider the implications and sustainability of a resolution by this Committee at the last meeting to refuse this application.
A copy of the report submitted to this Committee at the last meeting held on 20 April 2004 is appended to this latest report.
There is a three storey white rendered building comprising a disused pub or nightclub with flats over presently standing on the site (see appended plan(s) and photograph). The land rises steeply behind the building towards the rear of properties located off the High Street.
For details of the application Members should refer to the appended report.
The proposed development raised a number of policy related issues and other material planning considerations which can be summarised in the following terms.
Notwithstanding the content of the third party representations recorded in the report (see appendix) and statement of objections made at the meeting by owner/occupiers of neighbouring or nearby properties, Members gave significant weight to the interpretation and application of tourist related policies, primarily Policy T4 (Designation of Hotel Areas) in conjunction with longer term aspirations which may feature in the emerging regeneration plan for Sandown Bay.
Members chose not to accept the recommendation for conditional approval and decided to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment of the site would be contrary to the aforementioned policy.
Having advised Members prior to the vote that the proposed redevelopment of the site was not in conflict with this particular policy the Development Control Manager, in response to the resolution to refuse permission, invoked the cooling-off period to enable Officers to carry out further investigations and prepare a more detailed assessment of the Members’ interpretation of the policy implications and then report back to this Committee.
1. To reconsider the application and
granting conditional planning permission in accordance with the officers’
recommendation. 2. To reconsider the application, adhere to
the resolution and refuse permission on the grounds that in the view of the
Committee the proposed redevelopment is in conflict with Policy T4 of the
Unitary Development Plan. 3. To reconsider the application and decide
that Policy T4 of the Unitary Development Plan is not relevant and does not
offer a sustainable reason for refusing planning permission, but in
recognition of material considerations referred to in this report defer the
matter so that a site visit can be undertaken followed by the determination
of the application.
Options
As planning practitioners, professional officers employed in the Development Control Section have to rely on approved development plan policy as the primary consideration in the determination of all planning applications in accordance with the requirements of Section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. In similar terms, professional officers and elected Members should give significant weight to national/local planning policies but should disregard, or only give very minimal weight, to collective or individual aspirations, “wish lists”, preferences, etc. as they are extremely unlikely to offer a sustainable reason for withholding planning permission.
In order to provide a comprehensive response to the concerns expressed by Members leading to the resolution to refuse permission it is my intention to examine in particularly close detail the section of the Unitary Development Plan that deals with tourist related policies, and to test these policies in terms of relevance, weighting and potential conflict against the proposed redevelopment of this site. This analysis is based on Members and Officers general acceptance that this is an important and prominent site within an area which is clearly predominantly tourism related which is part of one of the Island’s main seaside resorts.
In making a decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation Members were relying on what was described as a rather “liberal interpretation” of Policy T4.
In the hotel areas
defined on the proposals map, proposals for hotel accommodation will be
acceptable in principle.
Applications involving the loss of hotel accommodation will only be
approved where they involve the upgrading or improvement of existing
hotels. Proposals involving the
loss of other forms of tourist accommodation, facilities, entertainments
and parking to uses unrelated to tourism will not be approved.
T4
The site is within the hotel policy area for Sandown, this factor is not in dispute, however:
· This application does not involve the loss of hotel accommodation and therefore is not in conflict with this policy.
· The application does not involve the loss of other forms of tourist accommodation and is therefore not in conflict with this policy.
· The application will result in the loss of a disused bar to be replaced with a retail unit at ground floor level, and is therefore not in conflict with this policy.
My conclusion is that Policy T4 does not in any form offer a sustainable reason for refusing this planning application.
The following tourist related policies have been examined and assessed in relation to the proposed development.
· T1 (the promotion of tourism and the extension of the season).
· T2 Tourism related development (other than accommodation).
· T3 (criteria for the development of holiday accommodation).
· T5 (hotels outside of defined hotel areas).
· T7 (sites suitable for tourism related development).
· T8 (ancillary development associated with tourism uses).
· T10 (the use of new tourist accommodation for permanent residential use).
All the above policies positively promote tourist and tourist related development while seeking to protect existing tourist and tourist related facilities. However, they have not been drafted and designed to negatively frustrate other forms of development on sites that are either not in tourist use or are only partially (or were partially) in tourist use. The majority of these policies are not relevant to the determination of the application, and where there is any “linkage” it is indirect and should be given only very minimal or no weight whatsoever in the determination of the application, and should on no account outweigh other planning policy issues which could be brought forward to support the redevelopment of the site.
On this basis Members are firmly recommended to rescind the present resolution, to reconsider the application and grant conditional planning permission.
To do otherwise would mean that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, would be likely to be faced with an appeal against an unsustainable decision which may involve an award of costs if the applicant chose to take the route of a Hearing or a local enquiry as opposed to the written representation procedure. Moreover, a decision to refuse an application for the redevelopment of a site where only part of the existing building was formerly in a tourist related use simply because the proposal is not for tourist accommodation or tourist related development would set a serious precedent for dealing with applications of a similar nature in the future which could lead to a trend that considerably reduces investment in the area, which will have a detrimental effect on the urban fabric and impact on the attractiveness of the town as a seaside resort.
It is considered that this was a misconceived decision and there are other issues which are material planning considerations which deserve to be carefully analysed before the application is determined. While there is no wish to deflect Members from the recommendation for conditional approval it may be prudent for the Committee to visit the site before determining the application.
3. To
reconsider the application and decide that Policy T4 of the Unitary
Development Plan is not relevant and does not offer a sustainable reason
for refusing planning permission, but in recognition of material considerations
referred to in this report defer the matter so that a site visit can be
undertaken followed by the determination of the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Tel: (01983) 853565
e-mail: [email protected]
|
|
TCP/02700/F P/02228/03 Parish/Name: Sandown Registration
Date: 19/11/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Demolition
of existing building; construction of 4/5 storey building to form 7 flats
with a retail unit on ground floor 9, Pier
Street, Sandown, PO36 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is being reported at the request of
the Head of Planning Services given the nature and level of objections.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
If determined at the April 20th meeting, this
application will have taken 17 weeks to process, the delay being due to
increased volume of work and further information submitted by the agent.
LOCATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site has an area of approximately 0.02 hectares
and is located on the northern side of Pier Street just before its junction
with the Esplanade. The Esplanade and
Pier Street are situated on rising land on a curve turning from east, rising to
the north towards the High Street. The
site is presently almost completely covered by the existing building which is a
three storey white painted rendered structure comprising a disused pub or
nightclub with flats over. The land
also rises behind the building, quite steeply to the rear of properties located
off High Street. There is a small area
of open, garden land intervening between the site and those properties.
To the east, No. 11 Pier Street is a three storey
property, of similar appearance and of similar finish; again shops on ground
floor with flats over. Beyond, further
to the east is the Trouville Hotel, a modernised four storey hotel building of
some considerable length facing the Esplanade, presenting a ground floor,
predominantly glazed, elevation with balconies on first and second floors,
surmounted by a false Mansard style roof incorporating dormer windows on the
Esplanade elevation.
To the west lies a cafe/restaurant on ground floor,
but the ground floor at a much higher level since, at this corner, there is an
extremely steep gradient as Pier Street rises from the Esplanade to High
Street. Slightly further north, attached
to this building is a private residence and, beyond, Montpelier Hotel, again at
a significantly higher level.
The area is one of mixed uses, but is predominantly
tourist orientated with flats, shops, cafes and restaurants, hotels and, with
the pier opposite, could be regarded as the centre of Sandown's tourism.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning consent granted for the change of use from
amusement centre to cafe in May 1995, referring only to the ground floor of the
premises.
Variation of condition on the previous permission to
allow preparation of other cooked foods - temporary planning permission in
August 1997 for a period of 1 year.
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to food and drink
(Class A3) approved as a retrospective consent in October 2001.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
In support of the application a letter from Solicitors
acting on behalf of the applicants has been received enclosing a representation
received from the adjoining property owner's agent who raised an objection to
the development.
The Solicitor's letter requests that the content of
the representation is reported to Members.
Essentially the neighbouring objector to the east
seeks an agreement with the developer to be able to sanction the design of the
development, their agreement to exceed 30 feet in height and the grant of
formal right of way over the steps (in the objector's ownership) over which the
developer requires access for the proposed development.
In addition the objector points out that the access
steps require substantial alteration in order for the development to proceed.
In return for this agreement to enable the development
to proceed the objector requires a legally binding agreement as follows:
1.
A non-returnable cash
payment to the objector
2.
Augured piles to be used in
the foundation construction
3.
The building to be of
timber framed construction
4.
Construction to minimise
effect on adjoining occupiers to east
5.
A restriction on use of the
ground floor to between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. and prohibiting sale of alcoholic
drinks
The letter continues by pointing out that the objector
has no principle objection to the development but derives no benefit from it
but is concerned about overshadowing.
It points out that agreement is necessary before the development can be
carried out requesting a cash payment as described in para 1 above. Agreement will result in withdrawal of the
objection.
This proposal represents the complete redevelopment of
the site following demolition of the existing building. The construction of a four storey building
to form 7 flats with a retail unit on ground floor.
Plans show the building to have four floors despite
the very steep gradient of Pier Street, ground floor is shown to be on a single
level. Flats are shown to comprise two
bedrooms, bathroom and living/dining/kitchen, with a staircase situated towards
the rear of the building served by a common stairwell accessed via the passage
just to the west of the building and from a door in the frontage. The plan forms for first, second and third
floors are similar but, on the fourth floor, the top floor, the flat comprises
three bedrooms, two of which are en-suite, a bathroom, a living/kitchen/dining
room. The first floor flats open out
onto a balcony facing the sea.
The building is proposed to be constructed in masonry with
an unspecified finish. Essentially the
front elevation is of a symmetrical design although the ground floor, which
projects forwards beyond the main part of the structure by about 2 metres, is
not necessarily symmetrical and, indeed, on plan forms a curved facade and
incorporates arched window openings, the shop front being set beneath the main
structure. The second and third floors
incorporate balcony features projecting 0.9 of a metre from the main structure
and fenestration with a horizontal emphasis prevails.
In relation to the adjoining properties, the parapet,
behind which sits the Mansard style top floor, is consistent with the height of
the Trouville Hotel a few metres east whereas, on the western side, the parapet
is slightly below the eaves level of the adjoining property although oversails
the adjoining balcony by about 2.7 metres.
The east elevation of the building is plain, the western elevation is
not especially detailed with the exception of string courses and the rather
unusual feature of secondary windows to bedrooms and kitchen inset in a splayed
recess approximately midway within the building's depth. The windows are situated in the splay and
are secondary windows to rear bedroom 2 and the living/dining/kitchen room in
their respective flats.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is located within the designated development
envelope and shown within Tourism Policy 4 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The site is under no specific allocation and is not
within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a Conservation Area.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer's recommend conditions if approved.
TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Sandown Town Council object to the development on grounds
of being out of character, loss of privacy, history of land instability in this
area, adverse effect in the street scene, loss of vision for motorists and
overdevelopment of the site.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection from local and neighbouring
property owners on grounds of adverse effect on existing fire escape, history
of land instability, excessive height of building representing an
overdevelopment of the site, overlooking and loss of privacy, development out
of character and overdominant on properties adjoining, loss of outlook and
inadequate car parking. One writer
suggests that, in the event that planning permission is granted, the fire
escape on the western side of the site is retained at all times and that the
ground floor of the property is restricted to retail use only. A further letter from the objector
adjoining the west side of the site requesting the Site Inspection Committee
view the site from her property.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to
comment, but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there would be any crime and disorder
implications.
EVALUATION
In essence this proposal seeks to demolish the
existing building, last used as a takeaway and restaurant and bar on ground
floor with flats over, and replacing it with a four/five storey building (rooms
within roof space) to form retail on ground floor with four floors of
residential above. In terms of the
footprint, the site coverage is very much the same as in the proposal. In terms of the use, it is proposed to
substitute the residential and commercial use with another, although it is
acknowledged that the residential use of this site is proposed to be
intensified. Accordingly, in terms of
policy and principle and bearing in mind the proposal seeks to retain a
commercial ground floor, proposals are considered to be consistent with current
UDP policy.
The height, scale and mass of the building is altered
only in the proposal to increase the height by 2 floors, one of which is
contained within the Mansard style roof.
The width of the building and its scale is consistent with the one it
replaces and adjoining properties, and although the height has been increased
by 2 floors it is similar in height to the Trouville Hotel a few metres to the
east and, of course, as the site is on rising land, the building rises with
land levels and is also consistent with the adjoining building to the
west. It is accepted that, in providing
an additional 2 floors, there are 4 more flats, but this is consistent with
Governmental advice seeking to maximise the use of urban land and increase
densities. The only way to increase
density in this instance is to increase height. However, in visual terms, whilst the adjoining property to the
east is somewhat dwarfed by the new development, it is already dwarfed by the
appearance of the adjoining hotel on its eastern side which means that the
adjoining property is the "odd one out".
Objections have been received to the scheme based on
excessive height and reasons cited for these objections are based on dominance,
loss of privacy, overshadowing and overdevelopment of the site, clearly
objections based on perceived impacts on the individual properties
adjoining. No one has a right to a view
and indeed, presently, some properties enjoy a view over the site to Sandown
Bay. Some loss of outlook will be
realised, but these properties are essentially the ones behind, to the north,
involve distances of between 15 and 25 metres and most are at higher level as
the land rises from the Esplanade to the north. Bearing in mind the distances involved and the relative heights,
it is unlikely that levels of light will be affected significantly.
In terms of overlooking, the rear elevation of the
proposal includes 4 floors including a dormer window in the roof, and these
windows serve bedrooms only, with the exception of windows to the
stairwell. In an urban area it is generally
accepted that there will be some mutual overlooking from upper floor
residential windows, a factor which is ultimately inevitable in many instances
due to decreased distances between properties, a consequence of increased
densities. However, the stairwell
windows could be obscured glazed in order to maintain light levels but whilst
eliminating a degree of loss of privacy.
The western elevation of the building includes an
unusual splayed recess containing windows serving the flats on first, second and
third floors, a kitchen window and a bedroom window in each of the flats on
each of the floors, but these windows are generally secondary, needed only for
obtaining light and ventilation, and in order to maintain privacy could also be
obscured glazed.
The first floor flats both have a small balcony on the
front elevation. This is at a lower
level than the terraces on the adjoining property to the east. The lower terrace is used commercially for
the restaurant/bar use but the terrace on the adjoining property on the next
level is used purely residentially.
This cannot be overlooked by the lower balconies but could be overlooked
from a terrace at roof level. The front
of the Mansard at roof level is in a position approximately equal to that of
the upper terrace adjoining, and the terrace level is about 2 metres
higher. This means that some view will
be blocked from that terrace but, of course, loss of view cannot be counted as
a reason for withholding permission. As
the terrace is situated further forward, to effect overlooking users of the
terrace would have to stand close to the western edge of the terrace and
"look back" in a northerly direction to view it. This could be overcome by setting a barrier
to the upper terrace adjoining the westernmost window, perhaps in the form of a
glazed screen, which would prevent access to the westernmost extent and, to a
certain extent, reduce possible overlooking.
In terms of design, the building comprises features
which emphasise the horizontal appearance of the building including string
courses, fenestration with horizontal glazing bars, parapets and railings to
the terraces, features which are found generally within the area. The inclusion of a flat within the Mansard
roof allows for a fourth floor (or fifth level) whilst maintaining the building
at its lowest. The inclusion of a
Mansard roof is similar to the Trouville Hotel in close proximity and the
Montpelier Hotel further up Pier Street.
Finishes to the building have not been specified but many other buildings
in the vicinity, especially on the north east side of Pier Street, are finished
in either white or cream painted masonry or render. The plans submitted suggest a similar finish.
Land stability has been raised as a reason to resist
the proposed development and although Building Control have no record or
reports of movement or remedial work, third party allegations of structural
instability have been made but, of course, these could be specific to the
building's failure as opposed to geological fault. However, Building Control consider that a structure of the size
envisaged could have a significant effect on the overall stability of land and
the buildings in the vicinity and suggest that a full Method Statement should
be submitted and agreed, both for the demolition works and for the requirements
for retaining existing surrounding land and property, before, during and after
construction works. Such a statement
would need to include results of a stability survey and the provision of
designed foundations and retaining structures before any work commenced on the
site.
The site is proposed to be developed with no parking
provision. The site is located within
Zone 2 where 0-50% of normal requirement could be provided, in this instance
zero parking is felt appropriate.
In summary, the replacement of an existing residential
and commercial building with a more intensive one is felt to be an appropriate
development, and with conditions it is felt that the objections are
substantially mitigated sufficient to grant planning permission.
The letter received from the applicant's solicitor
indicates there is a covenant issue to be resolved before development could
commence. This is a civil issue and,
together with the other civil issues, are not material considerations in
determining this planning application.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to grant planning
permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8
(Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful
Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties
have been carefully considered. Whilst
there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be
balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner
proposed. Insofar as there is an
interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the
material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the
replacement of this commercial and residential development with one more
intensive is felt appropriate provided that the tourism/retail use is
maintained on ground floor. The design,
scale and mass of the building are consistent with existing development in the
near vicinity and the development is consistent with Policies D1, D2, T4 and
TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time
limit - full - A10 |
|
2 |
Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until
a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing
and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Thereafter
only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the
development. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use
until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the
Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained
and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and
character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The windows in the west elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure
glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy
of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The stairwell windows in the north elevation shall be finished in
permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained
thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy
of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Withdrawn
PD right for windows/dormers - R03 |
|
7 |
Screening to a height of 1.8 metres above terrace level shall be
installed and maintained at the western end of the 4th floor terrace in a position
commensurate with the westernmost part of the window to bedroom 1 as shown on
the approved plan, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the
building. The approved scheme shall
be implemented before the building is occupied and the screen shall be
retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining
property and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The ground floor of the premises shall be used only as shown on the
approved plan for access to the flats hereby approved and as a shop falling
within Use Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use
Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any
statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification. Reason: In order to ensure that
the use of the premises accords with the terms of the application and to prevent
any alternative use being made of the premises which could be a source of
nuisance or disturbance to occupants of neighbouring properties and to comply
with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Prior to any construction work commencing on site a full Method
Statement for both the demolition works and requirements for retaining
existing surrounding land and buildings, before, during and after
construction works, and details of the foundation design including full
calculations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that any demolition, excavation and
construction works would not adversely affect adjoining sites and that the
development is capable of withstanding continuing land movement in the area,
and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
10 |
The passage situated on the western side of the site shall be maintained
as a clear route at all times during and after construction work to enable
adequate fire escape. Reason: In the interests of public safety and in accordance
with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
11 |
The dwellings hereby approved shall not be brought into use until
provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking
of a minimum of 7 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of
Sheffield hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate
provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling
and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |