PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 22 JUNE 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5. THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

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.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

22 JUNE 2004

1.	TCP/01467/E P/00874/04 Demolition of garage; detached double garage; two single storey extensions & first floor extension to provide additional living accommodation, to include dormer window on front and rear elevations Mon Abri, Foreland Farm Lane, Bembridge	Bembridge	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/04871/W P/00350/04 Change of use of redundant outbuildings to storage & light industrial; alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application) Land at Shalfleet Manor, Main Road, Shalfleet, Newport	Shalfleet	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/06159/T P/00160/04 Demolition of building; outline for six dwellings; formation of pedestrian access 106 School Green Road, Freshwater	Freshwater	Conditional Approval
4.	TCP/12107/A P/02542/03 Demolition of dwelling; erection of 3/4 storey block of 10 flats with parking; vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application) 98 Mill Hill Road, Cowes	Cowes	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/14875/H P/00362/04 Construction of piled jetty with building over to provide fish processing facility and retail outlet Ventnor Haven, Esplanade, Ventnor	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
6.	TCP/22221/E P/00566/04 Demolition of golf driving range structure; single storey extension to form replacement golf driving range; proposed floodlighting Westridge Golf Centre, Brading Road, Ryde	Seaview	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/22638/D P/00527/04 Variation of condition no.2 on TCP/22638C to allow occupancy of one caravan for use as managers accommodation all year round Whitefield (part of Whitefield Woods), Brading Road, Ryde	Brading	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/23135/A P/00496/04 Conversion of disused stable block into holiday cottage Barn at Kingston Farm, Kingston Road, Kingston, Ventnor	Shorwell	Conditional Approval
9.	TCP/24977/B P/00730/04 Outline for a 48 bed nursing home Land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde	Ryde	Conditional Approval
10.	TCP/25416/A P/00653/04 Demolition of building; pair of semi-detached houses; vehicular access (revised scheme) Haven, New Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde	Wootton	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 22 JUNE 2004

(a) TCP/12010/M	Operation of Bed and Breakfast facility Adgestone Vineyard, Upper Road, Adgestone	Adgestone
(b) TCP/18304/A	Service of an Urgent Works Notice to protect Grade II listed granary Gotten Manor, Gotten Lane, Chale	Chale
(c) TCP/22959/A	Single storey rear extension 10 Denness Road, Lake, Sandown	Sandown
(d) TCP/25666/B	Refusal of Planning Permission: Formation of vehicular access and hard standing Flora Cottage, Morton Road, Brading	Brading

TCP/01467/E P/00874/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 21/04/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Kenny

Demolition of garage; detached double garage; two single storey extensions & first floor extension to provide additional living accommodation, to include dormer window on front and rear elevations

Mon Abri, Foreland Farm Lane, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355TJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report has been requested by Local Member, Councillor Mr Gordon Kendall as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure. He considers proposal conflicts with policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and as such does not agree with Officer's recommendation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If the application is determined at the Committee it will have taken 9 weeks in which to determine and will have exceeded the 8 week period, this is due to the fact that the Local Member has requested matter be considered by Committee.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a chalet bungalow located at the southern end of Foreland Farm Lane, approximately 20 metres from the junction with Howgate Road. The area is primarily residential.

Bungalow is finished with render under a tiled roof. Numerous alterations have been carried out including the addition of a detached garage and an extensive rear and side flat roof extension.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1467/D – Application was approved in November 2003 for a dwelling and detached garage on the land rear of Mon Abri fronting onto Howgate Close.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application can be divided into six elements. Firstly, demolition of garage; secondly the formation of two single storey extensions, these are to be located on the rear (west elevation) and on the northern elevation providing a study, utility room and a small extension to the lounge. Thirdly a replacement dormer on the rear elevation; fourthly a new dormer on the front elevation these will provide additional accommodation within the roof space to serve one en-suite bedroom and a further bedroom. Fifthly the provision of pitch roofs over the existing flat roof elements and finally a detached double garage forward of the dwelling.

Revised plans do indicate a slight increase in the size of the front and rear dormers, due to minor amendment it has not been considered necessary to notify the neighbours.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within the development envelope. Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alterations of Existing Property).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has recommended conditional approval of the application subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the provision of a turning space and the maximum number of spaces within the curtilage for parking.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval as it is considered the alterations and extensions will be an enhancement to the dwelling.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection have been received from the local Member and two letter of objection have been received from the adjoining property occupiers. The points of objection are as follows;

Plot size of Mon Abri has been significantly reduced with the approval of a dwelling to the rear; garage forward of the dwelling will be a prominent feature within the street scene and will replace the current modest garage, and its position close to the boundary will cause practical difficulties in terms of maintenance; proposal would result in a rambling building with changes to the roof that will expand the mass of the existing building and create intrusion and over dominance for neighbouring properties resulting in loss of light and aspect from neighbouring properties windows; proposed velux window will add to additional overlooking in addition to the dormer being increased in size; overdevelopment of the site that will looked cramped and out of character with neighbouring properties; proposal is not sympathetic in scale, form siting and layout; it will detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings; it does not relate well to adjacent buildings. It was also noted that details were missing on the plans, revised plans have now indicated the elevations correctly. It was also noted that not all the dimensions were indicated on the plans, the plans are drawn to scale therefore it is not necessary for all the dimensions to be specifically noted.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations are firstly development plan policy and how the development will affect the character and appearance of the area and secondly the amenities currently enjoyed by adjoining property occupiers.

Regarding the impact on neighbouring properties, main area concerns relates to the increased levels of overlooking, and the potential for loss of light and loss of amenity. Whilst it is appreciated that the proposal is going to increase the footprint of the dwelling I do not consider that this will be to the detriment of the adjoining properties. The plans indicate a small extension on the rear elevation to extend the lounge this will extend out less than 1 metre from the existing bay. The other single storey extension on the side elevation is 3 metres by 7.6 metres, and in order to accommodate this extension it will involve the demolition of the existing garage. The proposed double garage is shown to be sited forward of the dwelling close to the northern boundary of the site and is 5.5 metres by 5.59 metres with an overall height to ridge of 3.9 metres. Given the position of the proposed extensions in relation to the neighbouring properties and the path of the sun, I am firmly of the view that the proposed extensions will not have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and loss of amenity. Furthermore, the properties within this area are of a variety of styles and designs and given the fact that there is not any set street scene the proposed garage will not be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

At the present time the dwelling has benefit of numerous flat roof extensions, I consider that the proposed developments will improve the visual appearance of the property.

A new velux window is shown to be sited on the southern elevation at first floor to serve a bedroom, due to the position of 123 Howgate Road in relation to Mon Abri I do not consider the insertion of the window would lead to any significant levels of overlooking. The replacement dormer on the rear elevation is also unlikely to have any further impact and new dormers on the front are unlikely to result in an increased level of overlooking to what currently exists.

It has been noted in the letters of comment that Mon Abri has been reduced in its plot size due to the approval of a dwelling in Howgate Close. This I do not consider this a reason to restrict appropriate further development at Mon Abri that is in keeping with the dwelling house itself.

Highway Engineer has recommended conditions; given the fact that Foreland Farm Lane is unadopted and a lightly trafficked road I do not consider it fair or necessary to impose the conditions.

In view of the above comments I do not consider that there is any reasonable objection to the proposed extension.

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 balanced with the right 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 FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development and the alterations as proposed will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Time limit - full - A10

The materials to be used in the alterations hereby approved shall be in accordance with the details and the plans attached to and forming part of this decision notice, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

External finish - S24

TCP/04871/W P/00350/04 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 17/02/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr M Waterhouse

Change of use of redundant outbuildings to storage & light industrial; alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

land at Shalfleet Manor, Main Road, Shalfleet, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Councillor Mrs T Butchers as the proposal is considered to be controversial due to the level of interest expressed by local residents.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 17 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to negotiations in respect of access arrangements and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site lies approximately 140 metres north of the main road (A3054) and west of Mill Road which is a relatively narrow road. The proposal involves the change of use of three existing outbuildings which were historically tied to the Shalfleet Manor Farm and is a redundant agricultural holding. Barn 1 was a former hay store which is typical in design constructed of a buff brick plinth with remainder of the elevations and roof clad in green corrugated iron. Barn 2 was used as a riding school area which is a two storey white painted rendered building under a semi-circular roof with lean-to elements either side. Barn 3 is a former workshop which comprises a single storey cream painted render under a shallow pitched corrugated roof measuring 26 metres in length. North east of these buildings is the existing farmhouse and to the south is the Grade II Listed Shalfleet Manor House. Part of this property is probably late 16^th Century built of Island stone rubble with modern tiled roof.

There are currently three main accesses onto the Shalfleet Manor estate one from Mill Road, second is an individual access that serves the Manor itself off the A3054 and the third is opposite Warlands Lane which runs north and then east directly connecting to these outbuildings. A further field entrance is located further to the west.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No relevant history.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to change the use of agricultural outbuildings to storage and light industrial uses and alterations to vehicular access. It is proposed that the hay store will remain as existing and only the southern elevation will be enclosed rather than leaving it as an open element. This will also apply to the existing riding school and the main two storey element will remain as existing and the lean-to elements on the southern and northern elevations will also be enclosed, whilst the existing workshop will have no external alterations.

Original submission also proposed the upgrading of an existing field access with improvements to a track running across the fields to connect to an existing gravel/hard core track served by access opposite Warlands Lane. Following negotiations with applicant's agent, this element has been omitted from the scheme and it is now proposed to reposition and improve the existing access opposite Warlands Lane to a position presently occupied by an existing field access.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside the development envelope within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, within Heritage Coast and is within an area liable to flood.

Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 – The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development.

S10 - In areas of designated scientific, nature conservation, archaeology, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of the area.

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C4 – Heritage Coast.

C13 - Hedgerows.

C17 - Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings.

D1 – Standards of Design.

G6 – Development Areas Liable to Flooding.

E8 – Employment in the Countryside.

TR7 – Highways Considerations for New Development.

B2 – Settings of a Listed Building.

B3 - Change of Use of Listed Buildings.

P1 - Pollution and Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Conservation Team are of the opinion that the outbuildings are some distance from the Manor which is a Listed Building and the application shows little alteration to the buildings. Therefore they do not consider the proposals would adversely affect the settings of a Listed Building.

Environment Agency have no objection in principle to the proposal but would wish certain conditions to be imposed, should permission be granted.

AONB Officer states that they are unsure as to whether the change of use will contribute to the provision of income to allow for continued land management of the farm holding and has concern on the potential incremental impact upon the AONB designation namely traffic issues, site access, landscaping, storage issues, agricultural use of the holding, noise and site activity. In summary they state that the submitted application does not in their opinion provide sufficient detail regarding the future use of the application site and the rest of this agricultural holding to allow for a true assessment on the impact on the AONB and the Heritage Coast to be made. AONB therefore object to this proposal in its current form for these reasons. Following negotiations on access AONB do not raise objections to this part of the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shalfleet Parish Council raises no objection. However they request that the new entrance way should be used to access the site and not the narrow exit via Mill Lane that exits at Shalfleet traffic lights.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters were received from local residents in respect of original submission objecting on the grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Construction of the new access;

· Change of use of outbuildings to storage/light industrial use is out of character with the surrounding green belt rural area.

Following re-advertisement of the proposal and at time of preparing this report, no further third party representations had been received.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering this application are the highway implications associated with the proposal and whether the proposal is appropriate development in the countryside as site is located outside the development envelope lying within AONB and Heritage Coast.

It is the applicant’s intention to reuse the redundant agricultural buildings to generate an income for the upkeep and maintenance of the Listed Manor house and its garden. Shalfleet Manor House is a Grade II Listed Building, therefore consideration will need to be given to the impact on the setting of the Listed Building. Due regard needs to be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in the spirit of Policy B3 which encourages development that facilitates maintenance of Listed Buildings. Conservation Team are of the opinion that the proposal would not adversely affect the setting of this Listed Building as the barns are some distance from the Manor. Taking in to account the applicant’s comments, investment in the building may help secure the long term future of Shalfleet Manor House.

Many concerns were raised by the AONB Officer and one such concern is the change of use. Policy C1 seeks to protect landscape character and requires that applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape and should be to the benefit of a rural economy. If current application was seeking consent to erect new buildings there would be clear and direct conflict with the adopted policy, however, I consider that the proposal is in the appropriate location bearing in mind no extensive external alterations will occur to the existing buildings. Whilst AONB Officer has raised concern regarding future incremental impacts, erection of additional buildings for commercial use would require planning permission and would need to be considered on the individual merits.

PPG7 (The Countryside) states “Policy on the reuse of agricultural buildings, allow a greater discrimination in favour or reuse for business rather than residential”. It also continues to say “The reuse and adaptation of existing rural buildings has an important role in meeting the needs of rural areas for commercial and industrial development to avoid leaving an existing building vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction, and to provide jobs”. Policy E8 of the Unitary Development Plan (Employment in the Countryside) states applications will be approved where the application is for the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural buildings. Therefore applications for employment related development on land outside of the development envelope boundaries is encouraged especially when considering high unemployment on the Island particularly in the western rural area.

I am therefore of the opinion that proposal to utilise existing buildings for light industrial purposes, which involves little alterations to the buildings, does not adversely affect the character of the area.

AONB Officer requests that as the buildings are described as redundant from their original purpose a legal agreement is secured preventing the sale of the site independently from the farm holding and that an additional agreement is secured to remove permitted development rights of the rest of the agricultural holding. These issues will be controlled by conditions, should Members be minded to approve the application.

AONB also raises issues on storage, noise and site activity. Both storage and site activity will be controlled by condition to ensure application does not have a detrimental impact on the landscape. Concerning the noise issue and after liaising with Environmental Health I would recommend conditions to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, should Members be minded to approve the application.

Proposed new access to western end of site has now been removed from this proposal and following negotiations the reinstatement of an existing field gate access will now serve as the new access which sits north east of Warlands Lane and east of existing access. After liaising with Highways Department they confirm that visibility can now be achieved providing hedgerow is removed and set back. The existing signposts/lamppost within visibility splay will also have to be relocated.

After liaising with the Ecology Officer it is confirmed that the hedgerow would not qualify as important under the Wildlife and landscape criteria, however it is a significant feature in the landscape and provides a habitat for nesting birds.

After consulting AONB in respect of the visual amenity of the area they confirm that with sympathetic and sensitive planning to redesign the hedge using appropriate species the character of the landscape of this part of the AONB can be retained in the long term and therefore raise no objection to this aspect of the proposal.

Taking into account all comments received, I am of the opinion that whilst I accept that in the short-term there will be a visual impact on the area to achieve the required visibility splays for highway safety, the replanting once established will minimise this. Regarding nesting birds, I consider that, should Members be minded to approve the application, decision notice should be accompanied by a covering letter advising that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to disturb a nest which is in use and removal of hedges should not take place during the nesting season, i.e. March to July.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposal to change the use of redundant outbuildings to storage and light industrial, alterations to vehicular access does not detract from the special quality and distinctiveness of the countryside and is appropriate development in this location. In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, particularly S4, S10, C1, C2, C4, C17, D1, G6, E8, P1, TR7, B2 and B3.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted 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.
2	The units hereby approved shall not be sold off separately but shall be retained in one ownership unless otherwise with Shalfleet Manor House agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 6 and Part 8 of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The alterations to the building(s) hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the alterations to 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.
5	Prior to the use hereby approved commencing the existing hedgerow fronting main road shall be set back and reinstated in accordance with details shown on approved plans. Such planting shall take place during the period 1 September to 31 January in accordance with a scheme indicating densities, phasing and types of species to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any hedgerows or parts of hedges which become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with plants of such size and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No outside manufacture/storage - D04
7	No outside storage of materials - D05
8	The units hereby approved shall be used for B1 and B8 uses only as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order and shall not be used for any other purposes including retailing without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Visibility splays of x = 4.5 and y = 90 metres shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter. No structure, erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs etc (other than well maintained grass and highway signage) shall be permitted within the visibility splay. 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 shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for heavy vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (b) Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm 2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material 3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, 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	The existing access to the site, opposite the junction of the A3054 and Warlands Lane, shall be stopped up and abandoned, the verge crossings shall be reinstated and the former access track shall be laid to grass on completion of the new access, as detailed on the approved plans, and in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Kerb radii to be 10 metres, access road width to be 10 metres for the first 15 metres from the highway boundary and surfaced with a bound material. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Development shall not begin until details of the relocation of the highway related signage adjacent to the existing vehicular access have been submitted to, approved by, and thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the highway authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	All areas where waste is stored, handled or transferred shall be underlain by impervious hardstanding with dedicated drainage to foul sewer or sealed tank. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	Any above ground oil/chemical storage tank/container and associated pipework shall be bunded in a manner so as to retain at least 110% volume of the largest tank within the bund. The bund shall be impervious and have no associated drainage. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	Prior to the use hereby authorised commencing, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours of the premises. The use shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended ,as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	Prior to commencement of works the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours for delivery and despatches to the development and once agreed shall be restricted to those hours thereafter. The use will not commence until these hours have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests if the amenities of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/06159/T P/00160/04 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton

Registration Date: 23/01/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Mr M McNulty

Demolition of building; outline for six dwellings; formation of pedestrian access

106 School Green Road, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409AY

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Colin Lillywhite, following consultation under Part 1B procedure, with his concerns relating to zero parking provision and impact that may have on on-street parking.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which will have taken 22 weeks to date. It has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination due to need to consider the full implications of the zero parking provision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to site on southern side of School Green Road presently occupied by single storey building and is in an area characterised by mix of uses although premises immediately adjacent to the site are residential. School Green Road is one of the main thoroughfares into Freshwater and is lined on either side by a mixture of established or modern development of two or three storeys in height. There is an existing detached chalet style dwelling within its own curtilage located to the rear of the site known as Green End with that property directly abutting recreation ground known as Stroud playing fields.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In August 2002 a detailed application for three pairs of semi-detached houses was refused on the grounds of a) cramped arrangement of dwellings, b) intrusive development out of scale and character having adverse effect on immediate adjoining dwellings and c) proposal would give poor arrangement of dwellings in relation of the property to the rear adversely affecting the outlook from that property. To date that refusal has not resulted in the lodging of any appeal.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Outline consent is sought for demolition of buildings and for residential development with siting and means of access to be considered at the same time. Application is accompanied by illustrative plan which indicate two pairs of semi-detached three bedroom houses and a semi-detached pair of dwellings consisting of a two storey three bedroom houses and a single storey one bedroom bungalow. The dwellings have been indicated to be sited in a stepped form having a minimum distance off the back edge of footpath of 1 metre. The split pair of house/bungalow is situated at the western end of the site and is angled to take account of the prominent location of that part of the site. The two house which forms part of the pair is set to have a wider frontage onto School Green Road to create maximum rear garden distance and therefore maximum distance of the chalet dwelling which abuts to the rear. It is important to appreciate that the plans and elevations that are indicated on the submitted plans are illustrative only although the layout plan reflect the floor plans indicated on those illustrative plans.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield site.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education and health visit facilities.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Relevant Local Plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

TR17 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

Site is located within Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which restricts parking to 0-75% of the maximum non-operational parking provision.

Reference is also made to Housing Needs Survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for single person accommodation, although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two or three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has taken a consistent approach, merely requiring a condition to be applied ensuring that the existing access to the site is stopped up and abandoned. Such an approach was taken by him in respect of the previous refused application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object on grounds of gross overdevelopment of the site, increase of traffic on an already dangerous and busy road, entrance/exit would be on the corner of a dangerous road and development would be within 100 yards of a school entrance creating an additional hazard.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application is subject of 3 letters of objection from residents of School Green Road the points raised summarised as follows:

· Proposal represents excessive development which will generate a level of car ownership increasing on street parking in the area adding to hazards for highway users.

· A reduced density with on site parking would appear to be a better solution.

· Initial proposals did not indicate the changing levels in respect of the application site in relation to the property to the rear. (Revised Plans now indicate section).

· One objector points out that the site has been known to be subject to flooding.

· Any houses on this property would result in overlooking of the property to the rear from first floor accommodation.

· One objector makes reference to inadequacy of drainage system in the area to accept additional discharge from development to this site.

· Reference made to a specific plant species (White Butterbur) being a rare marsh plant unique to this area. (Consultation been carried out with Council’s Senior Countryside Officer who confirms the species are not protected.)

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

It will be noted form the previous reasons for refusal that the principle of residential development on this site was not an issue a view with which I would concur. Current application as with the previous detailed application indicates zero parking and again it should be noted that the reasons for refusal did not raise the parking situation.

Given the format of this application which effectively seeks consent for a principle of development I am satisfied that the information provided in respect of this application is sufficient to enable the application to be recommended for approval. I would suggest however that any approval needs to be subject of general conditions but more specifically conditions relating to maximum height of dwellings and maximum level of accommodation which in this case is considered to be no greater than 2 bedrooms. This is considered necessary given that the proposal provides zero parking.

With regard to the issue of zero parking it is acknowledge that the failure to provide parking is causing concern to local residents however the location of this site abutting the main road, its position within Zone 3 of the parking policy (0 – 75% of guidelines) and the fact that it was not cited as a reason for refusal in respect of the previous application which suggests it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis that it fails to provide any on site parking. One of reasons I am suggesting that any properties on this site should not provide any more than two bedroom accommodation is precisely because zero parking schemes are more likely to function more readily with the smaller type of unit as opposed to the family sized unit. Obviously there are no guarantees but any purchaser or occupier of these properties would do so with the knowledge that there is no on site parking provision.

With regard to any on street parking availability the side of the road onto which this site fronts is subject to parking restrictions there being a single yellow line which effectively restricts any parking on this side to over night only and would obviously allow short term loading and unloading from the road during the day which obviously is of some importance when the site was used as a bakery. Given the pressures that will be placed on even this limited parking availability it may be considered appropriate to seek a traffic order to ban parking entirely.

This would involve the submission of a formal request through the Highways Department which would go through a public consultation procedure with the order being advertised in the local press. Comments would not only be invited from the public but also from the Parish Council and local Councillor. Comments of the Traffic Section of the Highways Department along with the police would also be taken into account. The whole process could take up to 3 months to conclude. The outcome of such an order would not necessarily be certain for to ban even limited parking on this side of the road could be deemed to be simply transferring that parking to roads in the vicinity where no parking controls are exercised. It is assumed that this would be a number of material considerations that would be taken into account in assessing the merits of any such traffic order to ban parking in its entirety on this side of the road.

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 the material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that the scheme as submitted, bearing in mind it is in outline form only, is acceptable and does effectively address the issues raised in the Reasons for Refusal on the previous application. Whilst acknowledging the concerns relating to no on-site parking I consider the report has adequately addressed these issues and that this zero parking proposal is in compliance with planning policies.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plan)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance and the landscaping of the site 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 the Site) and D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification) no dormer windows shall be constructed within the south east facing roof of the single storey dwelling forming part of this consent. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The five houses forming part of this consent shall not exceed two storeys in height and each house shall not exceed a gross floor area of 80 m²providing a maximum of two bedroom accommodation. Reason: In order to reduce likely generation of car ownership in compliance with policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The existing access to the site shall be stopped up and abandoned and the footway crossings/kerb shall be reinstated on completion of the new access. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	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 and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the existing system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not case flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight 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 a 2 metre high screen close boarded fence along the south eastern boundary. Such fencing shall be completed before occupation of any of the dwellings on the site. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicant advising them to note the contents of both conditions 4 and 5 ensuring minimal level of development to reflect the zero parking provision and fact that the illustrative outline scheme submitted as part of the application is not considered to be appropriate to comply with those conditions given that they indicate 5 three bedroom houses.

TCP/12107/A P/02542/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Central

Registration Date: 18/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Mr M Goodall & Mr P Tyson

Demolition of dwelling; erection of 3/4 storey block of 10 flats with parking; vehicular access (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

98 Mill Hill Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317EH

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved particularly contentious in respect of design and particularly parking issues, which has resulted in the readvertisement of the application, all of which result in the need for Committee determination in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is major application, the processing of which will have taken 27 weeks and has gone beyond the prescribed 13 week period for determination of applications owing to protracted negotiations with particular reference to issues relating to parking provision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a large detached property and its cartilage situated on the south eastern side of Mill Hill Road diagonally opposite the junction of Mill Hill Road with Grove Road. Site stands within a row of mainly traditional, long established dwellings with there being a pair of semi-detached properties abutting the south western boundary (Nos. 100 & 102 Mill Hill Road) whilst abutting to the north east is a terrace of 4 dwellings which appear as a single block, being Nos. 90, 92, 94 & 96 Mill Road. Site has a reasonably gentle slope from south west to north east and currently accommodates a large dwelling with integral garage. Site has an average depth of approximately 33 metres by a frontage width of 17 metres.

Mill Hill Road is a main thoroughfare into Cowes town centre and forms a bus route. Site itself contains no specific landscape features, although there is roadside tree situated on part of the frontage. Existing dwelling has the benefit of two vehicular accesses which serve the garage and the parking space forward of the garage.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a detailed application seeking consent for a three/four storey block of 10 flats providing a total of 6 two bedroom units and 4 one bedroom units.

In detail each floor provides 2 two bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom flat all served off a common staircase, with the third floor flat being in the form of a single bedroom flat located within the roof space.

In its revised form, the main element of the blocks stands between adjoining properties 96 and 100 Mill Hill Road, with the four storey section abutting No. 96 and standing approximately 1.5 metres forward of that property. The block itself has a maximum depth of approximately 31 metres by a maximum width of 31 metres. In height terms, maximum ground level to ridge is approximately 11.8 metres in respect of the four storey element, reducing to 9.5 metres in respect of the three storey element. Street scene plan indicates that the four storey element will be approximately 0.9 metres higher than the ridge level of the adjoining property No. 96 Mill Hill Road.

Revised plan indicates 2 parking spaces to be provided within the frontage area, making use of the existing vehicular access with the north eastern access being widened to 3.6 metres. Accesses to function as ingress and egress. Proposal indicates the creation of a new low brick wall 1 metre in height along the frontage boundary. Finally drying area and common patio area have been indicated to the rear, with additional landscape planting. Block to be constructed in facing brick with projecting bay elements finished with tile hanging under hipped slated roof. Both third floor and second floor accommodation to be serviced by circular headed dormer windows.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS/POLICY

Site stands within development envelope for Cowes as defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

National Policies covered in PPG3 – Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows.

· Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

· Create more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring accessibility by public to transport to jobs, education, health facilities, etc.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units per hectare being quoted as being appropriate levels of density, with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility, such as town centre sites.

· Emphasis on high density development not being at the expense of cramped development, and that such development should be of good quality design.

· Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Relevant Strategic Policies as follows.

S2, S2, S6, S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant Local Plan Policies are as follows.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards for Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

Site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum parking provision of 0-50% of parking guidelines, with those guidelines requiring a parking space per bedroom.

Reference is also made to a Housing Needs Survey, the conclusion of which acknowledges the need for single person accommodation, though there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Initial proposal which indicated a total of 7 car parking spaces, 6 to the rear and 1 to the front, along with a newly formed access, was recommended for refusal by the Highway Engineer on grounds of increased use of existing access onto a classified road and inadequate visibility.

Revised readvertised application retains the status quo, on which no Highway comments have been received.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council supported initial proposal which indicated a total of 7 car parking spaces, however in terms of the revised proposal reducing the number of spaces to 2, the Town Council objects on the grounds that there is an inadequate parking provision for the number of units.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Initial proposal attracted a total of 11 letters of objection, 8 from residents of Mill Hill Road, 2 from residents from Grove Road and 1 from the local Councillor. Following the readvertisement 5 letters and e-mails of objection received from residents of Mill Hill Road. A summary of points raised is as follows.

Main element of concern is the issue of parking, with reference being made to the level of intensive on-street parking which already takes place in Mill Hill Road and other adjoining roads. Objectors generally considered that the 7 parking spaces indicated on the initial proposal were inadequate, and obviously are avidly opposed to a proposal which only provides 2 parking spaces for the 10 flats.

Concern at the general mass and height of the proposal both in terms of its effect on the general character of the area and in particular the effect on the immediately adjoining dwellings. There is a general concern that the proposal will have an over-dominant effect.

One objector considers applicants should consider restoration and conversion of the existing building as opposed to new build.

Some concern expressed regarding the architectural approach and whether or not it would sit satisfactorily within a mainly Victorian street scene.

Coupled with the concerns relating to parking are concerns relating to increased traffic which local residents consider will be inevitable in respect of the density of development being proposed.

In general these issues are supported by the local Councillor.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Council’s Crime Prevention Officer raises following issues.

Development self-contained so can achieve reasonable level of security.

Car parking spaces in isolated position with little or no surveillance. (This comment related to the initial proposal.)

Need for appropriate lighting to take away the fear of crime.

Any passageways should be well lit to stop black hole appearance, and again address fear of crime.

EVALUATION

Material considerations in respect of this proposal are considered to be density, mass and height, architectural design and parking provision.

Density

Whilst acknowledging the concerns of local residents, the issue is not that this proposal indicates a total of 10 flats to replace one dwelling but whether or not the overall cartilage is capable of accommodating this level of development without appearing cramped. There is no doubt that the general character of the area is one of medium to high density development, with there being a number of examples of flat conversions in older properties.

I therefore consider the principle of flatted development of this site is acceptable, and in this case the applicants have chosen to provide this by way of new build as opposed to conversion of the existing building.

The number and type of units being proposed reflect those for which there is a recognised need identified in the housing needs surveys, with Cowes being one of those areas where there is particular need.

Mass and Height

Again whilst acknowledging concerns of local residents and local Councillor, this proposal is a development of mixed height with the four storey element being inserted to create a feature, with the main mass being three storeys in height. It is also important to appreciate that in the case of the second floor accommodation in the three storey element and third floor accommodation in the four storey element, these are within roof spaces which assist in reducing impact. Whilst accepting that the four storey element is slightly higher than the adjoining properties, in the main eaves, and particularly ridge heights, relate reasonably comfortably with the adjoining properties and the street scene in general. It is important to emphasise that the area is characterized by a mixture of dwellings of differing heights and mass, and this type of articulation within a street scene assists in creating a more interesting overall visual effect.

I do acknowledge that the proposal does represent the maximum that could be considered to be acceptable and that concerns being expressed regarding this issue do have some validity but are of insufficient weight to warrant a refusal of the application.

Architectural Design

There is a strong vertical emphasis to the design approach, particularly in terms of the window proportions and bay features. I consider this reflects a general theme in the area, with particular reference to sash windows designs. Also the use of hipped roof finishes again reflects the general theme, with particular reference to the adjoining properties. The footprint of the building assists in introducing steps and staggers, with the four storey element projecting approximately 4 metres in front of the three storey element. The circular headed dormer windows will also contribute visually to the street scene and provide an appropriate visual stop, assisting in breaking up the general roofscape.

I therefore cannot agree with local concern that this is an inappropriate architectural design and should sit comfortably within the general street scene, providing of course good quality materials are used.

Parking

This by far is the main issue of concern and Members will be aware of the difficulty of promoting the policies of sustainability where provision of parking is concerned.

Members will note that the application started off providing a total of 7 parking spaces, however in view of the Highway Engineer’s understandable objection to that level of traffic movement, with particular reference to poor visibility, applicants have been forced to reconsider the situation and have decided to move the car parking entirely to the front of the proposed property and provide no more than 2 parking spaces, which equates to the existing situation. This alteration did involve the reduction in size of flats and allowed the whole of the building to be moved back into the site, reducing the impact of the structure on the street scenes, thus resulting in 2 less two bedroom units and 2 more one bedroom units.

The level of accommodation being provided within the flats is a material consideration for, whilst there are no guarantees, the lesser the level of accommodation the lesser the likelihood of car ownership. In any event the issue will always be that any purchasers or lessees would be aware that the proposal provides limited larking provision and would therefore make their choice as to whether they occupied or not on that basis.

Members’ concerns regarding the general implication of the parking policies and the difficulty in promoting their practical application are noted, however they form part of statutory policies within the Unitary Development Plan and therefore the applicants are entitled to expect those policies to be applied.

This is a centrally located site close to the town centre and has immediate access to a main distributor road and bus service facilities. Indeed there is a bus stop in a relatively short walking distance from the site. Therefore this description makes it an ideal candidate for a reduced parking scheme and is in compliance with the parking policies.

It is appreciated that this is a difficult issue and the concerns of local residents are entirely understandable. The fact remains the site is within easy walking distance of the town centre and bus routes, and there are realistic alternatives to reliance on the private car for occupiers of this development. I also consider that there is a realistic prospect that these relatively small units (6 two bedroom and 4 one bedroom) would be more likely to attract non-car owning households, and the Zone 2 allocation recognizes that a reduced parking provision is appropriate.

The level of increase in on-street parking in the surrounding area which may be caused by this development is difficult to assess, but it is doubtful that it would add materially to congestion to a degree that would warrant refusing the application given that, in parking terms, it accords with the zonal parking policies within Appendix D of the UDP and policy TR16.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report I consider that this represents an ideal site for this level of density, that the mass and height is acceptable in the form indicated, the architectural approach will sit comfortably within the existing traditional character and, more significantly, whilst recognizing the issues of concern regarding provision of parking, the proposal accords with the parking requirements in the Unitary Development Plan.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans) (Subject to a Section 106 Agreement or 111 Agreement covering the following.)

Transport Infrastructure Payment 10 x £750 = £7500

Open Space & Recreational Contribution 10 x £290 = £2900

Education Contribution, the requirement for which will be dependent upon whether or not there is sufficient capacity in local schools.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until the existing access has been widened as indicated on the plan hereby approved and such widened access shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The proposed low brick wall along the frontage boundary shall not exceed 1 metre in height above existing road level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Construction of the building(s) 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.
5	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.
6	Before the development commences a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify position of species and size of shrubs and trees to be planted and shall indicate colour and texture of surface treatments. The scheme shall also indicate the phasing and timing of such works and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of landscaping. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	A soft and hard landscape management plan including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all the hard and soft landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the flats hereby approved. The hard and soft landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure long term maintenance for the landscaping of the development in compliance 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 design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected. Such boundary treatment plan shall include an indication of those boundary walls to be retained. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and the development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no windows shall be constructed within either the south west facing or north east facing elevations of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION - That the applicants be advised that they will need to address the Party Wall Act of 1996.

TCP/14875/H P/00362/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 18/02/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr G Blake

Construction of piled jetty with building over to provide fish processing facility and retail outlet

Ventnor Haven, Esplanade, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application, which is considered to be contentious having attracted a large number of representations and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 18 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to the need to obtain additional information, at the request of statutory consultees, and to carry out further consultations with the relevant body regarding the likely impacts of the proposal on the wider interests of the South Wight Maritime Candidate Special Area of Conservation.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area within Ventnor Haven at Eastern Esplanade, located to south of the Cascade and immediately adjacent to and east of the Southern Water pumping station. The haven has been formed following the construction of two rock armour walls, one at right angles to the esplanade wall and the other being L-shaped, continuing out from the pumping station.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14875/F-P/01437/98 - Planning permission for construction of two rock armour breakwaters to form a fairweather haven for vessels together with new slipway conditionally approved February 2002.

TCP/14875/G-P/00647/03 - Planning permission for construction of timber jetty within new haven between slipway and pumping station and a floating/fixed jetty parallel to the eastern breakwater conditionally approved May 2003.

Applicant is presently using part of boathouse building situated to rear of properties fronting the Esplanade and south of Marine Parade for the preparation, including boiling, of shellfish. This operation does not have the benefit of planning permission and is the subject of an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the use with a compliance date of 30 September 2004.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves the construction of a piled jetty with building over to provide a fish processing facility and retail outlet for the sale of wet fish/shellfish. The building would be supported on piles with a clearance of approximately 2.3 metres over the decking to the jetty below. The building and jetty would run at right angles to the sea wall and would sit adjacent the position of an approved slipway, which is yet to be constructed. The floor level of the building would be roughly level with the promenade.

The building would provide accommodation predominantly on one level with small first floor element at southern end to provide lookout area. Submission indicates that building would be clad in horizontal cedar boarding under a natural slate roof. Facility would include hoist at southern end of building to lift catch out of vessels.

The application was accompanied by two comprehensive reports, one entitled "Outer Eastern Solent Fisheries Activity Study", the objective of which is to provide an update/appraisal of the fishing industry and a review of the interaction between marine aggregate dredging and commercial fishing in the study area. The second report relates specifically to the provision of a shellfish processing facility within the Haven and, whilst prepared principally in connection with an application for a fisheries grant, the document contains information considered to be of particular relevance to the consideration of the planning application, including the background to the proposal together with other information on the fishing industry and its contribution to the local economy and environmental impacts.

Due to the comprehensive nature of this document, it is not considered practical to attach the whole report as an appendix. However, those sections of the report considered to be of particular interest are attached to this report as an appendix. Should Members wish to view the full report this can be made available on request.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The Haven, including the application site is located outside the development envelope for Ventnor, as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within the South Wight Maritime Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

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.

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 – Standards of Design

E1 – Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses

C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

C9 – Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

L8 – Jetties, Pontoons and Slipways

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineer comments that, although there is plenty of car parking in the immediate locality, the submitted plans do not show any vehicle parking as part of this proposal. He accepts that employees and service/delivery vehicles may park in the public car park, although during peak summer months this may be more difficult. He suggests that it may be more prudent to provide a couple of loading bays to replace or supplement the existing pair of Blake's retail facilities on the Esplanade.

Highway Engineer expresses some concerns regarding traffic generation in the area, particularly commercial vehicles that will have to carry out some reversing manoeuvres, into an area immediately alongside an unfenced children's paddling pool. It is suggested that some thought needs to be applied as to how to reduce this conflict to an acceptable level, such as provision of some fencing to segregate the pool from any proposed parking/loading facility.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment in respect of this proposal. However, he requests that, should planning permission be granted, the applicant be advised under Section 49 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 they must notify the Health & Safety Section of his Department of Employment of Persons at Work.

English Nature confirm that site falls within the South Wight Marine Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) which supports boulder reef habitat of considerable importance due to its high biodiversity. They comment that the jetty will not result in direct loss of boulder reef associated with the cSAC as this interest feature has been translocated as a requirement of the planning permission for the construction of the Haven. However, it is considered that development has the potential to significantly increase the pollution loading of waters within the haven by allowing:

a) an increase in the number and frequency of fishing vessels using the site above current levels, by increasing the weather window for viable launches of existing vessels and attracting other fishermen wishing to use the processing facility. Collectively these vessels are likely to generate pollution including oil and fuel spillages and sewage above current levels; and

b) the processing facility is likely to generate significant quantities of effluent, eg blood and animal tissue waste which may be discharged into the haven.

This combined pollution will be released into the reef habitat surrounding the haven with tidal movements. Although this should be diluted, dispersed and oxygenated by the dynamic nature of the waters along this coastline, it is still possible this pollution, over time, could adversely affect nature conservation interests of the cSAC. English Nature indicated that they have not received a copy of the Pollution Management Plan, which was a requirement of a condition attached to the permission for the construction of the Haven.

English Nature do not consider developer has provided information to demonstrate that any pollution or waste generated by the development will not have significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and therefore, in accordance with Regulation 48(1) of the Conservation (Nature Habitats &c.) Regulations will require appropriate assessment.

English Nature have subsequently been provided with a copy of a pollution management plan for the Haven, together with additional information submitted by the applicants in respect of the current proposal. Following consideration of this information, I am advised that the level of water based pollution which will be produced by the development is unlikely to have significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and therefore will not require appropriate assessment. However, to ensure that no effluent is generated by the development, it is requested that permission is subject to condition which prevents the gutting of fish within the Haven.

National Air Traffic Services have examined proposal from a technical safeguarding aspect and confirm that it does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS raises no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council recommend that application should be refused. They comment that the provision of a fish processing unit in this area which is of high amenity value is totally inappropriate and will cause a nuisance. They consider that such a unit should be situated in an area designated for industrial purposes. They also comment that the original plans for the Haven envisaged that it would provide a facility for fisherman and would not be exclusive for one user.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted 9 letters from local residents and one from an anonymous source objecting to application and raising the following issues:

· Accepted that some form of landing stage or pontoon required for use by visiting boats/tenders in order that crews can use facilities of the town.

· Facilities for visiting craft would be welcomed, such as can be found at other boating centres.

· Shame to see Haven used more by fishing vessels rather than visiting craft – detrimental to prosperity of the town.

· Questioned whether there is sufficient space within Haven to accommodate proposal – could be placed in car park where retail unit could be easily accessed by the public.

· If proposal goes ahead, Haven will be completely taken over by fisherman – facility originally intended for use by yachtsman and was not built exclusively for commercial fisherman.

· Haven crowded enough without making useable space smaller.

· Facility not in keeping with the area.

· Development of Eastern Esplanade should be considered on a comprehensive basis.

· Ventnor has worked hard to achieve Blue Flag status – this should not be put in jeopardy by this proposal.

· Proposal would generate increased vehicle movements in the area, particularly in vicinity of paddling pool, creating hazard for children in the area.

· Already a fish processing unit on Ventnor Industrial estate.

· Facility could be located elsewhere such as Yarmouth or Bembridge.

· Threat to success of other fisherman and associated employment. Proposal would result in crab and lobster stocks being depleted.

· Applicant’s existing facility on sea front has generated unpleasant smells as well as Health and Safety matters.

A total of 11 letters have been received, 7 from local residents and 4 commercial interests, in support of the proposal and raising the following issues:

· Facility will assist in the regeneration of the town which has recently witnessed a number of major development proposals representing significant inward investment.

· Seafront has already been enhanced by the efforts of the applicant.

· Proposal would create jobs, attract tourists and is key to the regeneration of seafront – Ventnor now synonymous with freshly caught local crab, lobster and fish.

· Haven is great asset to Ventnor and would be benefit for it to be seen as a working harbour. Fishery is an essential part of the integrated haven.

· Further investment in Ventnor must be encouraged.

· Fishery would generate income/employment throughout the year, not just seasonal.

· Fish and shellfish would be landed safely and at no inconvenience to the general public.

· Attractive, well thought out building.

· Inclusion of shop will be valuable attraction as well as providing safety factor for leisure users of the Haven due to presence of experienced personnel.

· Piles on which fishery will sit can be used for fixing pontoons increasing mooring facilities.

· Building as proposed will facilitate efficient handling of catch eliminating any spillage and will minimise vehicle movements, reducing significantly vehicle movements on seafront and hazards to other road users.

· Slipway can be kept clear for use be leisure boat owners, separate from commercial activities.

· No offensive smells have been experienced from the existing premises.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether the building by reason of the position, design and impact of the structure would detract from the amenities and character of the locality. In addition, it is necessary to have regard for the impact of the development on the Candidate Special Area of Conservation and any implications arising from generation of traffic.

Site lies outside the development boundary for Ventnor, as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the proposal satisfies criteria within relevant policies of the Plan in respect of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside of the defined settlements. Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) is considered to be particularly relevant to the determination of this application. In accordance with the policy, in areas outside of defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale and falls within one or more of the categories detailed in the policy. These include development connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal falls within a category of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside the development boundaries and is acceptable in principle, subject to all other factors, such as the design of the building and the impact on the surrounding environment being satisfactory.

The plans which accompany the application for a fisheries grant indicate that the jetty and shellfish processing building would be located on the western side of the Haven, immediately adjacent the Southern Water Pumping Station. However, this proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions and it was considered that this location was inappropriate as the proposed building would conflict with the Southern Water Pumping Station which is considered to be a landmark structure. Therefore, scheme was revised and facility was relocated to a position further to the east, immediately adjacent the position of an approved slipway, and running roughly centrally through the Haven. In addition, the structure has been raised in order that the floor level of the building runs roughly level with the promenade. Consequently, I am now satisfied that there is sufficient distance between the proposed building and the Southern Water Pumping Station so as to avoid any potential conflict between these structures.

The building, although elevated on piles, is itself relatively low profile, providing predominantly single storey accommodation and is of a simple design. The building would be clad in horizontal cedar boarding with a slate roof. I do not consider that a jetty/pier type structure of the type proposed would be alien to the environment in which it is to be situated or that it would detract from the character and amenities of the locality.

Concern has been expressed by local residents that proposal will occupy large amount of space within the Haven which was originally intended for visiting leisure craft. However, the jetty structure, along with the previously approved jetties and pontoons within the Haven, would provide facilities for mooring of boats. In addition, it would be noted that the original application for the Haven was accompanied by an Environmental Statement and under a heading of "Statement of Need", the objectives of the proposal included the provision of a safe and more efficient facility for the launching and landing of fishing vessels and unloading the catch. In addition it was envisaged that facility would provide an amenity which could be used by pleasure craft for recreational and angling trips, as well as a stopping off point for craft passing round the south coast of the Island. Therefore, it was always envisaged that the Haven would provide facilities for both commercial and leisure craft.

The report which accompanied the current application addresses issues relating to the history of Ventnor as a fishing village and the current decline in the industry. The proposal clearly has implications for an important industry which contributes to the economy of the area as well as generating employment. The report highlights the benefits associated with this proposal, including the provision of a facility which would enable the fishermen to unload their catch in the safety of the haven and obviate the need to travel greater distances to destinations on the northern side of the Island or the mainland.

Some shellfish and fish are landed directly onto the beach at Ventnor, although it is understood that, due to draught restrictions, such landings are restricted to small catches and are in any case usually only possible in the summer when the weather is suitable and the sea calm. At times when this is not possible, boats have to shelter between fishing trips at suitable safe havens such as at Bembridge. It may also be argued that use of the beach along this coastline for the landing of fishing catch conflicts with use by tourists during the summer months. Therefore, it is considered that this facility would be a valuable asset to the fishing industry as a whole and not just to satisfy the applicant's needs. In addition, the proposal is potentially of benefit to the economy of the town. In this respect, the report which accompanied the application acknowledges the economic conditions within Ventnor and suggests that employment opportunities are limited and seasonal. It suggests that the proposed boat facilities and processing plant within the Haven are seen as much needed investment and that the construction of these new facilities would secure the viability of the local fishing industry, securing and eventually increasing employment locally and creating additional opportunities in related occupations and industries as a result of increased profitability.

With regard to the impact of the proposal on the interest features of the cSAC, I am satisfied that proposal will not have significant or adverse impacts in this respect. In particular, in the absence of any objection from the statutory consultee, I do not consider that this matter would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. However, English Nature have recommended that, should permission be granted, they would expect a condition to be attached to the planning permission which prevents the gutting of fish in the Haven. I consider that such a condition would be over-restrictive and difficult to enforce. Therefore, should Members be minded to approve the application, I would suggest, as an alternative, that conditions are applied relating to the method of disposal of by-products from the processing of fish and shellfish and that no such waste is disposed of directly into the haven.

Members will be aware that the area at eastern Esplanade, immediately below the Cascade and Winter Gardens, is the subject of a development brief which encourages redevelopment of the area. Suggested uses include a restaurant, sailing club, chandlery and a seafood preparation facility and shop, as well as retaining and relocating existing car parking, toilet facilities, etc. Development of this area may also involve realigning the road and relocating the paddling pool. Whilst the Haven itself is not within the area which is the subject of the brief, I am satisfied that the current proposal accords and does not conflict with the aims of the brief. In particular, the provision of the fish processing facility and shop within the Haven would ensure that the potential for a mix of uses in this area can be maximised.

With regard to issues raised in respect of traffic generation, it is accepted that, whilst the whole area may be redeveloped in time, the current proposal must be considered on the basis of the current level of infrastructure and layout of facilities. The applicant is currently operating his boats from the area and carries out some processing of fish/shellfish in a building elsewhere on the Esplanade. Having regard to these factors, and whilst it is suggested that proposal would result in additional employment, I do not consider that the development raises significant issues regarding traffic generation. However, I would agree with the views expressed by the Highway Engineer that additional information regarding the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles is required. In this respect, I am satisfied that, should Members be minded to approve the application, this matter can be adequately addressed by conditions requiring the submission of this information prior to work commencing on site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in principle and will not detract from the amenities and character of the locality. Furthermore, subject to appropriate restrictions on the disposal of waste from the processing facility and implementation of the Council's Pollution Management Plan, the development will not have an adverse impact on the interest features of the cSAC. In general, it is considered that facility would be an asset to the town and sustain and potentially create additional employment.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Covering letter to accompany decision notice drawing attention to the comments of the Environmental Health Officer)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development, together with the proposed colour finish to the elevations of the building, 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	Any piling operations associated with the construction of the jetty and building to provide a fish processing facility shall only be carried out between the hours of 0700 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 hours and 1800 hours on Saturday, and at no other time, including Sundays and recognised Bank Holidays, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the potential noise nuisance from the proposed operations in the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse and waste products following the commencement of use of the building hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse waste has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter and no waste resulting from the processing of fish/shellfish, including blood, entrails and shells, shall be disposed of into the haven. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and the interest features of the South Wight Maritime cSAC in accordance with strategic policy S10 (Designated or Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) and C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to the development hereby approved commencing on site, details of an extraction and ventilation system incorporating appropriate odour neutralising plant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such extract and ventilation system shall be installed prior to the building being brought into use for the authorised purpose and retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residential occupiers in particular, and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The use of the building for retail purposes shall be limited to the area notated on the approved plans as a "wet fish shop" and shall only be used for the sale of wet fish and shellfish and not for any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and reenacting that Order, except with the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The land is situated within an area where general retail uses are not normally permitted and to comply with Policy R2 (New Retail Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to work commencing on site, details of the location of facilities for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the approved use shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include, where necessary, fencing/railings or other appropriate barrier to avoid conflict between vehicles attending the site and the nearby children's paddling pool. The agreed parking and loading/unloading facilities and fencing shall be provided prior to the building being brought into use and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/22221/E P/00566/04 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 30/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr M Wright

Demolition of golf driving range structure; single storey extension to form replacement golf driving range; proposed floodlighting

Westridge Golf Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331QS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Reason for committee consideration application is considered to be potentially contentious in respect of lighting impacts which results in the need for committee determination.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which will have taken 9 weeks to date.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Driving range is located south of existing Westridge Leisure Centre and currently comprises 10 covered bays and 9 open bays facing north eastwards. Golf Centre has benefit of club premises and 9 hole golf course.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various minor approvals for equipment store buildings.

Extension to provide teaching bay and additional practice bays approved in November 2001.

Existing floodlighting on site was approved in August 1992 with conditions restricting the average illumination levels of the site and prohibiting use of floodlights after 21.00 hrs.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposed rebuild bay range would extend of approximately 60 metres with depth of bay totalling some 4.25 metres.

Application seeks consent to demolish existing metal clad bays and replace in similar location a larger brick built structure which would provide for 16 covered units. The new structure would match, in terms of external materials, adjoining clubhouse comprising matching brick work walls underneath felted roof. In terms of height, structure would be taller replacing existing range having maximum height of 3.5 metres with new structure having height of 4.5 metres.

Proposal also incorporates lighting system incorporating 5 spot lights which will be located on top barge board to proposed structure. These 2,000 Watt light units are required to provide the appropriate illumination levels.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG17 - Planning for Open Space - Sport and Recreation

D14 - Light Spillage

T7 - Driving range located within identified tourist development area within an adopted unitary development plan. Specifically, policy T7d refers to Westridge and states that planning proposals for tourism uses will be acceptable in principal. The company in text states that any future development should ideally be of recreational nature and include both indoor and outdoor facilities.

Following policies of UDP are considered relevant:

S4 - Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

G5 - Development outside defined settlements

G10 -Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses

D1 - Standards of Design

T7 - Sites suitable for Tourism related development

L7 - Golf Course Development

L2 - Formal Recreational Provision.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Our Engineer considers the proposal does not have any highway implications.

PARISH/TOWN COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Campaign to Protect Rural England raise no basic objection to principle of upgrading golf driving range. However, concern is raised over lacking details in respect of proposed floodlighting as both CPRE and Vectis Astronomical Society have been mounting campaigns to try to reduce light pollution. Concern is also expressed as to the justification as to why night driving is need on golf range and will need to be assured that any lighting is confined only to areas needed and that there is no upwards or sideways light spillage.

Six letters have been received from residents raising objections on the following grounds:

· Increase in light nuisance to homes in surrounding area and reference to the fact that current levels of lighting from the facility at night are already intrusive.

· Inappropriate siting of new building which will be visible on ridge

· Type and style of lighting proposed which will be located on higher building

· In appropriate development in the countryside

· Accumulative lighting problems from Westridge in general

CRIME DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime disorder implications are anticipate.

EVALUATION

Members will appreciate that application relates to established golf course and associated driving range, the latter facility operating with the benefit of floodlights, approved in 1992. This consent is subject to condition prohibiting use of floodlights after 2100 hours. Existing facility is illuminated by five separate lighting units which shine horizontally in an east north-easterly direction.

Given established nature of operation I do not consider there is any reasonable objection in principle to upgrading of driving bay facility itself. Main consideration relates to the illumination of such a facility and its potential for adverse impacts on nearest residential occupiers.

Letters of objection and concern have been received, mainly from those properties north east of application site, with distances to nearest properties in Nettlestone in the order of some 1600 metres and a minimum distance of 1000 metres to nearest residential property in Pondwell. Whilst there are nearer isolated residential properties it would appear that illumination from existing facility can be seen over longer distances across gently sloping valley which exists between existing facility and aforementioned properties.

In support of application lighting consultants have assessed the current lighting installation at this range and offer the following comments. Firstly the existing system utilises an end range lighting system with floodlighting comprising 1000 watt high pressure sodium units of a design used in the 1970s. They offer no glare control or internal baffles to shield lamp from areas outside range facility. Proposed extension to the golf range facilities includes building additional tee booths and consequently increasing number of floodlight units required to light range. The proposed improvements to lighting include changing the existing floodlights to a modern equivalent but taking advantage of advances in reflector and lamp technology to enable reductions in the size of the floodlights and control of glare. The units also contain an internal baffle and can be fitted with an external hood to reduce the effect of upward light and glare towards residential properties. They advise that the extended facilities, if fitted with the latest floodlights, will not increase levels of glare currently experienced by residents, and if fitted with suitable hoods will offer greater light pollution control.

Detailed technical information submitted with application indicates that ground surface of driving range will be illuminated to 250 metres, whilst submitted plans indicate driving range extending to maximum distance of some 300 metres.

Whilst concerns of residents are noted and appreciated, appropriate weight must be given to the fact that this is an established site which accords with the UDP allocation for tourism and is supported by policy L2 which relates to formal recreation provision. As the site is already illuminated until 2100 hours it is considered that application provides opportunity to provide more modern lighting units which, given advance in technology, will allow for greater control over illumination levels and potential light spillage. Provided appropriate conditions are attached to any planning consent requiring installation of baffles and hoods and maintaining time restriction until 2100 hours it is considered that on balance such conditional approval will allow continued operation of facility whilst helping to minimise impacts on locality in general.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in this report I am satisfied that an appropriately conditioned consent will not compromise operational activity or recreational and tourism facility or amenities of residential occupiers in locality.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	The floodlights, hereby approved, shall only be operated in connection with the use of the site as a golf driving range and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The floodlights hereby approved shall not be operated after 2100 hours. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The floodlights hereby approved shall be sited at roof level on the driving bay structure hereby approved and such heights above ground level shall not be varied in any way without the written prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The floodlights hereby approved shall be fitted with baffles and hoods in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Such an agreed scheme shall be fully implemented and installed prior to the floodlights being brought into use and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing golf centre. 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.

TCP/22638/D P/00527/04 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens

Registration Date: 12/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr & Mrs E Davies

Variation of condition no.2 on TCP/22638C to allow occupancy of one caravan for use as managers accommodation all year round

Whitefield (part of Whitefield Woods), Brading Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Joyce, who wishes this matter to be considered by Members given Town Council's objection to proposal.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 15 weeks to date. This has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because of the need to obtain additional information from the applicant and the local Member’s request for Committee determination.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A woodland site of some 10 hectares situated on eastern side of Brading Road/Beeper Shute lying immediately north of Beeper Farm Campsite and straddling Galleyhorn Lane. Site comprises predominantly conifer/deciduous woodland with cleared forecourt area with access to site adjacent junction of Galleyhorn Lane, which is a bridleway, with Brading Road. There is a degree of commercial activity in the area closest the entrance and roadways have been cleared within the woodland area to facilitate approved development.

RELEVANT HISTORY

AGN/22638/A/IW/P729/98 – Agricultural prior notification for erection of storage building, June 1998.

TCP/22638/P730/98 – Continued use of land for forestry with seasonal camping and touring caravan site; retention of office accommodation and provision of cabin for manager’s accommodation and new forestry building, refused July 1999. Appeal dismissed with the Inspector concluding that proposed tent and caravan pitches would be consistent with aims of the UDP and would not have a harmful effect on the character of the area or undermine or put at risk the relevant policies in the existing or emerging Development Plan. However, he dismissed the appeal because of the proposed temporary residential accommodation, provision of which he concluded did not outweigh those policies that seek to prevent isolated residential development in the countryside.

TCP/22638/B/P625/99 – Use of land for continued forestry operations with seasonal camping and touring caravan site; retention of office accommodation and provision of cabin for manager’s accommodation; new forestry building, refused July 1999 for reasons of unjustified exception regarding residential development, contrary to the Development Plan and potential precedent. Subsequent appeal withdrawn.

TCP/22638/C/P1758/99 – Use of land for continued forestry operations with seasonal camping and touring caravan site; retention of 2 cabins for storage and washing/toilet facilities; relocation of office cabin and new forestry building, approved with conditions January 2000. Relevant condition is No. 2:

“This permission shall not authorise the use of the land as a site for tented camping or for the stationing of touring caravans except during the period from 1^st March to 31^st October in each year.”

The reason for this condition was:

“The use of the site for the permanent stationing of caravans or tents would conflict with the emerging policy of the Unitary Development Plan in respect of such sites.”

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought to vary the terms of condition 2 of TCP/22638/C (quoted above) to allow occupancy of one caravan as manager’s accommodation all year round.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 and the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan seek as a matter of principle to resist residential development in the countryside, unless it is essential for the proper running of businesses dependent on the countryside for their location. This would include agricultural activity and, in certain circumstances, tourism related development.

The site is outside the development envelope defined in the UDP and is within Parking Zone 4. Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New Development concentrated in Urban Areas;

S4 - Countryside Protected from Inappropriate Development;

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages;

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements;

D2 - Standards for Development within Site;

H9 - Residential Development outside Development Boundaries;

H12 - Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans;

T8 - Ancillary Development associated with Tourism Uses;

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character;

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration;

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development;

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Forest Enterprise has supported previous proposals on site which would aid woodland enterprise, manager’s presence is essential, although cannot say all year occupancy is necessary.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brading Town Council suggests that evidence of need for manager’s accommodation should be provided. As tourist business has not yet started, no evidence of need can be submitted or justified.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Islandwatch object – could be thin end of wedge for some sort of development of the site.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

LPA has consistently rejected all year round manager’s accommodation on this site (refusal in 1998 and 1999) and such accommodation was excluded from the submission approved in 2000. In the appeal which was dismissed in 1999, the Inspector commented that “… the need for the proposed temporary residential accommodation on the site in association with the proposed forestry and tourist activities does not outweigh those policies that seek to prevent isolated residential development in the countryside”.

The applicant now draws attention to the permitted use of the site (forestry and seasonal camping and touring caravan site) and submits that temporary living accommodation for forestry workers/management is already allowed, presumably under the GPDO.

He advises that the woodland will soon be open for camping and that on site management will certainly be essential from 1 March to 31 October, and that camping areas will need attention and supervision throughout the year. He has also submitted results of a survey of camping/caravan/holiday sites on the Island, identifying those where manager’s accommodation exists on site. Of the 22 operators contacted, 16 had year round accommodation on or adjacent the site, for management purposes. The applicant’s research revealed no similar site of similar capacity for touring vans and tents without either management or owner on site throughout the year.

The condition restricting residential occupation of the touring caravans to the summer season was imposed in 2000 because to do otherwise would be contrary to the emerging policies of the UDP. The UDP has now been adopted, with stringent policies protecting the countryside from inappropriate development and restricting residential development to specified areas, unless overriding need can be shown. The reasons for the imposition of the condition in 2000 therefore still remain valid, but must be seen in the context of other policies of the plan which allow exceptional residential development for specific purposes.

This whole argument regarding the need for manager’s accommodation was rehearsed at the 1999 appeal hearing and failed to convince the Inspector that there was sufficient functional need to set aside the policy regarding residential development in the countryside. Specific information has now been submitted on this issue. The UDP in policies G5(a)(c) and (h), H9(d) and T8 recognises that ancillary development, including residential development, can be necessary to sustain tourist sites and the countryside’s economy. The question which needs to be asked is whether, if the Inspector had information supporting the need for one van to be occupied on an all year round basis, he would have considered the proposal an appropriate exception under those policies. The decision must be made as to whether the residential use now proposed is essential to the approved tourist use and therefore compliant with UDP policy, particularly H9(d) and T8.

It is likely that visitors to the site will arrive at irregular times, sometimes late at night, and will need direction to their pitches. They may also depart early and need to pay bills, etc. and require manager’s assistance at unsocial hours. It is for this reason that most similar sites have 24 hour supervision and why the exceptions policies have been written into the UDP. I believe that had he considered the issue in this light and been assured that the tourist development would indeed be carried out, the Inspector may well have been more supportive of it.

Although a start has been made on the roadways to give access to the individual sites, the tourist use is not yet operational. Therefore any consent will need to be subject to a condition that the manager’s accommodation is not installed on the site until the touring, camping and caravan site is open to the public.

With regard to the forestry requirement, Forest Enterprise agrees that a manager’s presence on site is essential but does not say that all round occupancy is necessary. Therefore compliance with G5(a) may be questionable and should be reflected in the conditions.

Site is a SINC (No. C168) but it was accepted at the previous appeal that providing no permanent structures were proposed, there would be no adverse impacts on nature conservation issues. I consider that still to be the case, particularly bearing in mind the nature of this application and the reasons for given for imposition of the subject condition in 2000. Information has now been submitted to show how the proposal might be considered as essential to the operation of an approved tourist use as required under T8 and H9, although as the use has not yet fully commenced, any approval will need to be conditioned to ensure that occupation is in genuine support of an operating tourist facility. Monitoring of need in the first instance can also be achieved by making any consent temporary, say for one season. Such an approach would enable the LPA to review the need for the accommodation at an appropriate time in the light of experience of the operation of the site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in this report, I am of the opinion that providing the principal development of seasonal camping and caravan site is property undertaken, the development proposed can be considered compliant with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and a conditional approval issued.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on (1 December 2005), on or before which date the "caravan" shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored ("in accordance with a scheme previously agreed in writing by the LPA") unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The building is of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the date of the opening of the approved touring, camping and tenting site to the public and the caravan hereby approved shall not be placed on site and occupied for residential purposes until after the date so notified.

Reason: To ensure that the development the subject of this consent is provided solely as an exception under UDP policies restricting residential development in the countryside to those required in connection with the operation of an approved tourist use, in accordance with policies H9(d) (Residential Development outside Development Boundaries) and T8 (Ancillary Development Associated with Tourism Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The living accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied only during the period 1 March - 31 October in each year.

Reason: The living accommodation is required to support the tourist use of the site, which is approved only for that period and in compliance with policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) and T8 (Ancillary Development Associated with Tourist Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/23135/A P/00496/04 Parish/Name: Shorwell Ward: Central Rural

Registration Date: 05/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr & Mrs T Cockram

Conversion of disused stable block into holiday cottage

barn at Kingston Farm, Kingston Road, Kingston, Ventnor, PO382LQ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor Mrs E Oulton, when consulted under the delegated procedure raised concern regarding the suitability of the location for tourist accommodation, which is approached along a narrow lane, and that the building is unsuitable for intended use. Therefore, she was not willing to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure and requested that this matter was considered by the Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 15 weeks and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to protracted consultations and Case Officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a disused stable block which lies adjacent Kingston Copse and set a considerable distance away, west of the B3399, which is the main road through Kingston. Site comprises of a cluster of buildings including two stable blocks and one derelict stone/brick barn and forms part of a registered farm, which is obsolete. Existing building comprises of stone block under corrugated roof, which fronts courtyard area. Kingston Manor and St James's Church sit north east of application site and are both Grade II* Listed Buildings.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/23135 - Enforcement related issues in respect of ruinous state of buildings and the amount of rubbish littering the land at Kingston Farm, Kingston.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent is sought to convert an existing single storey disused stable block into holiday accommodation. Proposed holiday unit will comprise of kitchen/diner, sitting room and 2 bedrooms with en-suite facilities. Existing roofing material will be removed and replaced with a new slate roof. Various window/door openings will be altered to accommodate habitable living quarters.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following policies are considered relevant to the determination of this application.

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 - The Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

B2 - Setting of Listed Buildings

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

D14 - Light Spillage

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty

C17 - Conversion of Barns and other Rural Buildings

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should consent be granted.

Ecology Officer advises it is unlikely that the barn proposed for conversion has protected species and confirms that proposed construction works will not be a threat to the badger activity, as the site is more than 30 metres from the excavations.

Council's Senior Structural Engineer has no specific comments.

AONB Officer advises that in the absence of a whole farm approach, and to safeguard against any future subdivision of this holding, they would be keen to ensure that this conversion remains tied to the agricultural holding either through conditioning or legal agreement, should planning permission be approved. They have some reservations as to the appropriateness of the use of roof lights in a dark sky area, similarly they would oppose the inclusion of outside lighting, knock-on landscaping and/or parking schemes out of keeping with the farm environment. Concerns also raised on the remoteness of the location, and comment on potential urbanisation of the area and any subsequent requirement for the placement of advertising signage. They also question the safety implications of increasing vehicular access along a public byway.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shorwell Parish Council believe that the proposed change of use is entirely out of character with the location and that access is not suitable for a dwelling, nor is there suitable car parking as, although the area is paved, it is used as a farm track and a public footpath runs across it. Residential car parking could also block the only access path to the churchyard.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received from solicitor acting on behalf of local resident objecting on the grounds which can be summarised as follows.

· Concerns regarding the name that will identify the development and that development is sufficiently differentiated from Kingston Manor Farm.

· Since 1985 Home Farm has not traded and indeed the only use to which it has been put is personal equestrian uses, and therefore not applicable under farm diversification.

· Proposed building has never been used or fitted out as a milking shed and is therefore inaccurate information.

· Building has little or no architectural merit.

· It is considered that health and safety will be compromised as potentially dangerous agricultural vehicles are in close proximity to tourists.

· Objector wishes to restore stables to the south side of Kingston Lane adjacent the byway, and the rise in the volume of traffic accessing the proposal will hinder the safe access into the lane.

· Kingston Manor and St James's Church are Grade II* Listed Buildings and increased vehicular traffic within the vicinity will damage both the essential fabric of the area and to its tranquility.

· Application is vague and would set a dangerous precedent.

· Parking has not been designated and the use of parking within the courtyard will be restricted.

· Kingston Lane does not have an ideal surface to allow for an increase in vehicular traffic and therefore would deteriorate further.

· Concerns raised over proposal as objector has an obligation to maintain the steep sided banks where there is evidence of badger setts.

· Concerns on potential noise nuisance as the applicant lives 2 miles away.

· Field owned by applicant which surrounds old St James's Church overlooks Kingston Manor. If development is permitted tourists staying in the holiday let could have unrestricted view.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Site lies outside the development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Determining factors in considering this application are whether site is an appropriate location for holiday accommodation in the countryside and whether proposal would detract from amenities of area and nearby residential properties by reason of noise, traffic generation and whether conversion respects the character of the area.

Having regard to nature of proposal and location of site outside development envelope, Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan is considered to be particularly relevant. This policy relates to conversion of barns and other rural buildings, and indicates that buildings need to be of substantial, sound and permanent construction and structurally capable of re-use and adaption without major or complete reconstruction. Application was accompanied by a report on the condition of this building, and after liaising with the Council's Structural Engineer I am satisfied that building is suitable for conversion and that proposal would comply with policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. However, he has highlighted comments on new drainage which states:

"It is understood the immediate environs of the Barn as they are low lying compared to the rest of the Kingston Manor complex suffer from storm water flooding. Consequently it will be necessary to ensure new drainage system drains to a lower level preferably to the drainage stream some 70m to the west of the barn".

Should Members be minded to approve the application, I consider that a condition can be imposed to control this, and specification of drainage will be controlled at building control stage.

As site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty consultation were sought from the relevant department. The AONB Officer states that in the absence of a whole farm approach, and to safeguard against any future subdivision of this holding, they would be keen to ensure that this conversion remained tied to its agricultural holding. Applicant has submitted with the application a letter confirming that the building in question will remain in their ownership and will be managed by them. In order to ensure site is retained in one ownership I would recommend that a condition is imposed on any planning permission which will alleviate any fears on subdivision of this holding.

Concerns were raised on the appropriateness of two rooflights in a "dark sky" area. I do not consider that inclusion of the rooflights would generate significant light spillage or that this is a justifiable reason for refusal. The roof lights are a conservation type and are of sympathetic design. Additionally AONB raised issues on outside lighting, landscaping and parking schemes, all of which could be controlled by imposition of conditions on any consent.

On the subject of signage, commercial business could display some advertisements under deemed consent with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, although such rights are quite restrictive for the type of development involved in this instance. However, should consent be required it will be necessary to make a formal advertisement application to display advertisement and will therefore be controlled.

AONB Officer also questioned highway safety by permitting vehicles along the byway. However as the proposal is for a two bedroom holiday cottage I am of the opinion that it would not generate a vast amount of traffic and due to the natural state of the road and visibility it would not allow vehicles to drive at excessive speed. Further concerns on the health and safety were also raised, as potentially dangerous agricultural vehicles are in close proximity to tourists. Access to the proposal is an existing public byway, SW56, which is open to all traffic. I am of the opinion that proposal will not add unduly to hazards of the highway, and it should be noted that Highways Department have no adverse comments on this issue. Highways do require a condition to be imposed for two parking spaces within the curtilage. Details will need to be submitted in writing in order that the parking spaces are sensitively sited and to comply with highway legislation.

It has been raised that since 1985 Home Farm has not traded, or indeed the only use to which it has been put is personal equestrian uses, and therefore not a principle under farm diversification. This highlights the fact that application is not to be considered as farm diversification and relevant policy in this instance is policy C17 which encourages the re-use of existing rural buildings. Suggestions that the application is vague and would set a dangerous precedent are overcome by policy C17 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan which promotes re-use and adaption of rural buildings for tourism purposes. In any event, each case would be considered on its own merits.

Kingston Manor and St James's Church are Grade II* Listed Buildings and concerns were raised on potential increased traffic within the vicinity which will cause damage to both the essential fabric of the area and to its tranquility. After liaising with the Conservation Officer I am advised that work to the stable is considered to enhance this structure and he does not consider the works to have any adverse impact upon the setting of either Listed Building. The traffic and pollution generated from exhaust fumes would not sufficiently increase the levels of pollutants to such a degree that they would put the fabric of these listed buildings at risk, especially when you consider the close proximity of the existing B3399 and its associated traffic. Also taking into account the existing uses of the byway and the B3399, I do not feel the proposal will detract further from the tranquility of the area.

Objector advises that they have an obligation to maintain the steep sided banks where there is evidence of badger setts. In this respect, I am advised by the Ecology Officer that there is evidence of badgers within the area. However she is of the opinion that proposed construction works would not be a threat to badger activity.

With regard to potential noise nuisance after consulting with Environmental Health I am of the opinion that the use of proposal will not cause any adverse noise. However, in the event of such disturbance Environmental Health regulations would control this.

For reasons previously mentioned I consider the stable is structurally capable of adaption. The proposal incorporates a simple design and I am satisfied proposal would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not detract from the character of the locality.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that the principle of converting this disused stable block outside the development envelope is acceptable, and I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring property or detract from the visual amenities and the character of the locality. As such, I do not consider that proposal conflicts with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted 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.
2	None of the accommodation provided in the development hereby approved shall be used other than for holiday purposes. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The occupation of the holiday accommodation shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or group of persons, for a period in total exceeding 6 weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) 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	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 building is 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.
7	This permission does not allow the demolition of any part of the building except that shown on the approved plan(s). The remaining structure shall be retained in conjunction with the new building works permitted by this permission. Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed conversion work respects the appearance and character of the building in accordance with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	The alterations to the building(s) 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.
9	The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the proposed building shall be such as, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, reflect the particular architectural character of the building. A full specification of such materials, together with samples where appropriate, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is first commenced. Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed conversion work respects the appearance and character of the building in accordance with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	The window and door frames of the building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed conversion work respects the appearance and character of the building in accordance with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no freestanding buildings, structures, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes (A and E) of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No external lighting, either free standing or mounted on the buildings, shall be supplied or installed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reasons: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	The development 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 to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.
15	The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of 2 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	The foul drainage from the proposed development shall be discharged to a septic tank and soakaway system which meets the requirements of British Standard BS 6297: 1983 and which complies with the following: (a) there is no connection to any watercourse or land drainage system and no part of the soakaway system is situated within 10 metres of any ditch or watercourse; (b) porosity tests are carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that suitable subsoil and adequate land area is available for the soakaway (BS 6297: 1983 refers). Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/24977/B P/00730/04 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns East

Registration Date: 29/03/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society

Outline for a 48 bed nursing home

land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde, PO33

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application site has a particularly contentious planning history involving a recent appeal dismissal, and the application has attracted a large number of representations, all of which result in the need for a Committee determination in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application the processing of which will have taken 12 weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application site forms part of a large field on the eastern edge of Ryde having a frontage of approximately 133 metres onto Appley Road on its southern side. There is a field gate in the western corner onto Appley Road and the whole of the frontage boundary is in the form of a bank and hedge. The part of the field which is subject of the application has an area of approximately 1 hectare and is located adjacent the western boundary of the field, running the whole length of that part of that boundary which forms the rear garden boundaries to properties 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Grasmere Avenue. The boundary then extends a further 50 metres to the south where it abuts the curtilage of the engineering company Trucast. This boundary is the only defined boundary on site, with the remaining boundaries being undefined. The western boundary itself is walled towards its southern end beyond which it has intermittent hedging and trees.

As implied above, the western boundary of the application site abuts existing residential development consisting of 5 single storey dwellings and 2 two storey dwellings known as Grasmere Avenue. To the north on the opposite side of Appley Road is further residential development along with a hotel (Appley Manor Hotel) and a recreation ground. Abutting the eastern boundary of the field, but not the application site itself, is further sporadic residential development served off Thornton Close and Thornton Manor Drive. The field itself, and the application site, is generally level which is a characteristic of the general area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In December 2002 an outline application for a two storey building comprising 12 elderly person's units and 24 bed nursing home and associated facilities including training/day support centre and vehicular parking and landscaping was refused for the following reasons:

· Site lies in the countryside outside the defined development envelope boundary for Ryde.

· Development of site would result in the loss of high quality agricultural land.

· Local Planning Authority not satisfied that an adequate sequential analysis has been undertaken showing why this site should be developed for residential purposes before other suitable or available sites.

· Proposal will result in adverse impact on the visual amenity and character of the area.

· Development proposal likely to lead to significant increase in journeys to and from the site by private car.

In July 2003 an outline application for 36 bed nursing home was refused for following reasons:

· Site lies in the countryside outside the defined development envelope boundary for Ryde.

· Local Planning Authority not satisfied that there are no alternative suitable sites that could accommodate the proposed land use.

· Proposal would result in loss of high quality agricultural land.

· Proposal would result in adverse impact on visual amenity and character of the area.

· Development would be likely to lead to significant increase in journeys to and from the site by private car.

Both applications related to the whole of the forward part of the field covering the whole frontage to Appley Road over a depth of approximately 135 metres. That depth equates to the length of the rear boundaries of the seven dwellings which front Grasmere Avenue. The indicative plan in both cases indicated a block centrally located with parking on the western side served by a vehicular access in the north western corner of Appley Road. The above related to indicative plans, for both applications were in outline form only with all matters reserved.

Both refusals were subject of appeals which were considered at the same time and which were both dismissed in January 2004.

The Inspector's report justifying the dismissal of the appeal forms an important material consideration in assessing the merits of the current application and therefore a full copy of that report is attached to this addendum. However in order to assist I quote the conclusions of the report as follows.

"I have found that there are substantial planning objections to the appeal schemes. They would harm the semi-rural character of the area and would result in the loss of 1.6 hectares of best agricultural land. Normally such objections would readily justify dismissal of the appeals, but I have found that there are matters which need to be weighed in favour of the proposals.

There is an urgent need for the specialist accommodation proposed. I am in no doubt as to the importance of this provision given the unqualified support from the NHS Primary Care Trust, the NHS Healthcare Trust and the Council's Social Services. The appellant would provide nursing care at an affordable level. Given the funding constraints imposed on the appellant I am satisfied that the appellant would not be able to develop the accommodation proposed unless land is secured well below normal residential value. In practice I consider that there are no alternatives available to the appellant and that neither scheme would be likely to proceed if the appellant cannot develop on the appeal site. This is an important material consideration given the pressing need that this has been highlighted and the absence of any evidence to suggest that this need will be met by other schemes, whether public, charitable or private. I consider that the appeal site is well placed to conveniently serve at the intended client group. All these circumstances in compliance with policy U1 are sufficient to justify using a site outside a development envelope identified in the UDP. These matters therefore weigh substantially in favour of allowing both appeals.

In my view the planning objections and the justification for the appeals are finely balanced, but as I have previously noted the schemes do not make efficient use of the greenfield site which is also the best agricultural land. In my view the whole of the appeal site is not needed to achieve the developments proposed. The possible future need for the appellant to utilise all of the appeal site is too tenuous to carry much weight and I consider that the whole site is not needed to minimise the visual impact of the development. This unnecessary loss of best agricultural land tips the balance against the appeal schemes."

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is an outline application with all matters reserved apart from siting and means of access.

Initial proposals indicated an application site which measures a maximum 140 metres in depth by 68 metres in width located to the east of and directly abutting the rear boundaries of properties 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Grasmere Avenue. Application also includes frontage land over a depth of approximately 10 metres in the eastern half of the field fronting Appley Road.

Following a negotiating process revised proposals have been submitted which have effectively moved the rectangular site, still measuring 128 metres by 68 metres, further to the south, resulting in 50 metres of the western boundary extending beyond the Grasmere Avenue development and abutting the Trucast curtilage. This has resulted in the proposed two storey "T" shaped block being located further to the south, and the site then reduces to 20 metres in width where it abuts Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 Grasmere Avenue in order to accommodate the access drive. The revised application continues to indicate a narrow length of the overall frontage in order to accommodate the required visibility splay.

In terms of the access this is indicated to be in virtually the same position as the field gate, off Appley Road in the north western corner. Submitted plan indicates a 4.5 metre carriageway with 2 metre footpath on the western side, with the back edge of that footpath being set approximately 7 metres off the western boundary. Access serves an informally laid out parking area providing one group of 9 spaces, second group of 12 spaces and third group of 3 spaces. This parking area is indicated at the northern end of the main rectangular site.

The block itself has been indicated to be sited with its main length being on the eastern side of the rectangular land, having an overall length of 81 metres and width of 17 metres. The shorter length which projects to the west is approximately 14 metres wide by 28 metres in depth and has its western end 12 metres off the western boundary, with the north facing elevation of that element being level with the south eastern corner of the rear garden of property No. 15 Grasmere Avenue. This represents the closest that this building will be to any of the Grasmere Avenue curtilages.

The proposal indicates a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 90 metres, and because of this requirement a new hedge has been indicated along the back edge of that visibility splay along the frontage onto Appley Road. A new hedge boundary has also been indicated along the western boundary of the rectangular element of the site which returns along the southern boundary and eastern boundary. Also the area around the proposed car parking has been indicated to accommodate extensive landscaping. Finally the proposal provides for a secure garden area abutting the shorter element of the proposed block on its southern side.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national policies are as follows:

PPG1 - General Policy and Principles

PPG7 - The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development

PPG3 - Transport

In terms of the Unitary Development Plan site is outside, but on the edge of the development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant strategic policies of the Unitary Development Plan are 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. Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists

S3 - New developments of a large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to defined development envelopes of the main Island towns of Cowes/East Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Sandown and Shanklin.

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated

S11 - Land use policies and proposals to reduce the impact of and reliance on the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to encourage the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network

Local Plan Policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G2 - Consolidation and infilling of Scattered Settlements outside Development Envelopes

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Developments

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C14 - Safeguarding Best Agricultural Land

TR13 - Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

TR4 - Transport Statement Required before Major Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

U1 - The Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Educational Services

U3 - Appropriate Location of Education, Community, Social, Health and Welfare Facilities and the Promotion of Sharing and Dual Use

U9 - Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

D3 - Landscaping

Because of the site's location within the countryside, albeit on the edge of the urban area, it is situated within Parking Zone 4 of the Unitary Development Plan which allows parking of 0-100% maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision.

In terms of Use Classes Order, this use falls under C2 (Residential Institutions), with particular reference to the use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care, other than a use within Class C3 (Dwelling Houses).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved, with those conditions covering access, turning space, parking, loading and unloading, visibility and site lines, submission of details in terms of the access road, provision of a travel plan, and provision of cycle parking.

Council's Archaeology Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

Council's Environmental Health Officer is concerned about potential disturbance to future residents of the proposed development because of the proximity to an existing use classified as B2, namely Doncasters Trucast Limited, which in part abuts the western boundary. He therefore suggests an appropriate condition requiring the submission of a scheme for protecting occupiers of the development from noise from the adjoining industrial user and such agreed scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied. The conditions also suggest that the scheme shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no alterations to the various structures without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The reason for such a condition is to prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, to the future occupiers of the development.

The Environmental Health Officer's advice to the applicant is that they contact/liaise with the adjoining industrial company in order to determine noise emissions from specific processes and specific plant and machinery, on site operating times, which may then be used to design an appropriate scheme.

It is important to appreciate that the above requirement would have been applied to the initial siting as well as the current revised siting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of 14 letters of objection itemised as follows.

4 from Thornton Manor Drive, 2 from Grasmere Avenue, 2 from Appley Road and 1 each from Derwent Drive, Salisbury Road, Westridge Farm, Calthorpe Road, the CPRE and Countrywatch Residents Association. Points raised are summarised as follows, and relate particularly to an extensive letter received from an immediate neighbouring property owner in Grasmere Avenue.

It is also important to note that all these letters were received prior to the revised siting and at the time of preparing the report all residents of Grasmere Avenue which abut the site have been advised of the resiting indicating in the revised plan, and any specific comments relating to that revised siting will be reported accordingly.

One of the neighbouring property owners in Grasmere Avenue acknowledged that the appeal dismissal did suggest that the site had potential for this type of development but considers initial siting to be unacceptable, having an adverse environmental impact on his property. He does state however that repositioning of the block further to the south may overcome those concerns.

Reference made to Inspector's view that the characteristics of the site contributes to the countryside character being the reason why the site was not included within the development envelope boundary as defined in the UDP. Writer considers this justifies the suggestion that any development on the site should be set well back from the road given that the applicants could build anywhere on the site.

Writer contends that the existing hedge and embankment is a major contributor to the rural character and that its removal is inevitable if access is to be provided off Appley Road. Writer suggests that applicant should consider an alternative access from the south to avoid such a removal.

Reference made to Inspector's view when dismissing the appeal that the then proposal because of its location would essentially destroy the countryside character, and therefore the location of the block further to the south would, to an extent, reduce that adverse impact.

Regardless of the issues raised above, any development of this site will result in the loss of Grade II agricultural land.

Applicants have failed to accompany current application with a listing of alternative sites, which writer considers is essential, pointing out that there may be a number of brownfield sites available, particularly in East Cowes and Newport.

It is suggested that the applicants have failed to justify need. Writer also questions that the applicants have particularly failed to indicate a specific need for Seaview and Nettlestone areas and questions whether they guarantee that the beds will be allocated to persons with a specific postcode.

Previous applications and appeals gave specific figures for the price of the land, however the current application does not. Writer therefore questions affordability, particularly in view of recent reported large development areas available in other areas of the Island.

Writer suggests that applicants have taken a rather inflexible attitude to considering other sites, with the Appley site representing their long term aim.

If application is approved stringent steps should be taken to prevent further development on the site and protect remaining Grade II land, possibly through the use of a Section 106 agreement. There is extensive concern that approval to this development may open the door to further development within this strategic gap land, and precedents may be set that would allow pursuants of applications on Grade III land in the area.

General reference made to the positioning of any building in proximity to the Trucast site.

Writer outlines advantages of revising location to the southern end of the field as follows:

Access could be via Hope Road through the Trucast site, but recognising that this may raise other issues, although would enable the frontage onto Appley Road to remain essentially unaltered and thus retaining its countryside character. Writer outlines a number of advantages to such a suggestion.

Writer makes reference to second option, moving the proposal some 50 metres to the south. This would have the effect of reducing appearance of the development when viewed from residents of Grasmere Avenue. In making this suggestion he refers to a number of advantages to such a relocation.

He emphasises that a second option mentioned above would make "considerable difference" in terms of impact on the nearest development. Makes reference to the block no longer being directly opposite existing dwellings and the resultant reduction in noise and disturbance.

Writer also suggests that the car parking arrangements could be revised to increase the distance from the existing rear boundaries of Grasmere Avenue, thus reducing any disturbance to occupiers of those properties.

Writer suggests that if applicants were willing to take on board the suggestions then he may find himself in a position to withdraw his current objections. (Members are advised that applicants have, to a degree, taken on board the writer's suggestions, although not in their entirety.)

The above represents main points of objection, however other objection letters raise the following additional issues.

The land provides an important strategic gap between Ryde and Seaview.

Area provides absolutely no amenities for any proposed residents.

Pedestrian access to the site is very poor, resulting in dangers to pedestrians, staff and visitors.

Concern that poor pedestrian access indicates that most visitors will arrive by car, resulting in unacceptable pressures on existing roads.

Appley and Puckpool area is designated for tourism and recreation and therefore proposal is inappropriate.

CPRE concurs with the above and suggests that this site is being chosen merely as a matter of expediency and a rural location is in no way necessarily required.

Concern by users of the agricultural field that the activities taking place on that field will cause smell and noise disturbance to residents, and point out that the field is used all winter months for slurry spreading.

Application has been subject of approximately 50 letters of support, which are approximately itemised as follows.

2 from residents of Grasmere Avenue, 3 from residents of Thornton Close, 6 from medical practitioners/GPs, 14 from Ryde residents, 14 from Seaview residents, 1 from Cowes residents, 1 each from Bembridge, Ryde and Ventnor branch of Abbeyfield, 1 from Methodist Church, 1 from Church of England Archdeaconery, 1 from Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust, 1 from Age Concern, 1 from Isle of Wight Society and 7 signature petition from members of the Abbeyfield Society.

All letters in essence refer to increasing demand for such a facility and shortage of both residential and nursing home beds on the Island.

Copy of letter from Strategic Director, Social Services and Housing, written in respect of the previous applications, has been received supporting the current proposal. That letter emphasises that the Directorate supports developments of integrated care services for older people which can be closely located within centres of population. This helps to reduce burden of transport costs and provides a sense of community, cohesion and provides access to local facilities. Ryde is clearly one of these locations. The longer term needs of the Island community, notably for older people, will indeed mean the need for further investment in new services which can best meet needs. As expectations increase, higher standard and improved facilities will be necessary and new build opportunities are more likely to incorporate these. The exact location of any new facility is, however, not within the control of his Directorate, and clearly there needs to be some consideration given to one of the Council's key objectives, which is to protect the Island's physical environment.

Isle of Wight NHS Primary Care Trust similarly supports the proposal, comments as follows:

"This development represents a timely addition to the type of health and social care provision facilitated by independent sector providers on the Island. Availability of this facility we believe to be in harmony with the overall strategic plan for the development of health and social care services on the Isle of Wight for older people; this is in recognition of the demographic pattern of the Island population." The letter makes reference to basic strategies, with capacity within nursing and residential homes being crucial if the aims of this strategy are to be realised.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Members will note from the quoted conclusions of the Inspector’s report dismissing both appeals that the decision was a balanced decision with the Inspector citing the harm that the proposals would have done to the semi-rural character of the area, and the resultant loss of 1.6 hectares of best agricultural land was sufficient for him to conclude that dismissal of the appeals was appropriate. Therefore the main judgement to make in respect of the current proposal is whether or not they have adequately addressed those concerns and, more importantly, had they been the subject of the appeals themselves would the Inspector have come to the same conclusions.

In purely land area terms this proposal does represent a reduction in land uptake from 1.6 hectares to 1 hectare. This does represent a more modest approach by the applicants for, when related to the appeal proposals, the applicant indicated that the larger area of land had been chosen partly to allow for future development. Indeed the appellant at the time identified a site area of 0.8 hectares (2 acres) as the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposal in an appropriate setting.

In terms of the current scheme’s impact on the semi rural character of the area, the area of the field which has now been identified to accommodate the development is set to the south and covers only half the width of the field, set some 56 metres back from the carriageway edge of Appley Road. In this position the building itself within the land uptake is approximately 100 metres back from the carriageway edge. This, coupled with the fact that the block itself will only present a 17 metre width of building when viewed from the north, indicates the level of reduction of impact on the strategic gap.

It is important to appreciate however that even in this revised position and covering a reduced area of land the development will have an inevitable visual impact, and therefore Members would need to assess whether that level of impact is acceptable and a small price to pay given the specific services and facilities which are being proposed in this case.

The above represents a general comparison between this scheme and the refused schemes, and the following covers the more detailed issues which need consideration.

Effect on Character/Proposed Landscaping

Members will note that the site has a strong countryside character with boundary hedging, and particularly the roadside hedging contributing substantially to that character. It is also important to appreciate that this countryside character has been enjoyed by the adjoining residents and therefore their concerns regarding the potential loss of this feature are understandable.

Apart from the building, which the applicants have indicated to be relatively low profile albeit two storeys in height, other physical impacts will be the car parking, the access road and the provision of a visibility splay which will result in the loss of the frontage boundary hedgerow. The remaining areas of the site are clearly capable of being landscaped, which will obviously assist in softening the impact of these factors but would need time to mature before that softening effect takes place. The Inspector did recognize that “the scale of the potential impact could be reduced by sensitive and extensive new planting”.

The most radical harm to the character of the area will inevitably be the loss of the frontage boundary hedgerow. Firstly it is important to establish that when the previous refused applications were being dealt with the Council’s Ecology Officer did not identify any of the hedgerows, with particular reference to the frontage hedgerow, as being of particular importance in terms of wildlife and landscape criteria, apart from the fact that it does provide suitable nesting and feeding areas for birds. Any removal should take place between August to February inclusive to avoid disturbing nesting birds.

The issue of replacement hedge planting would need to be addressed at the earliest possible date and therefore if Members are minded to approve this application I would suggest a letter be sent suggesting consideration be given to advanced planting of a hedge along the proposed back edge of the visibility splay, with that planting hopefully taking place even prior to the submission of a reserved matter or detail application. This would enable that planting to establish itself and therefore provide visual and screening value as soon as possible. Such planting should of course be carried out with a mixture of native species to encourage wildlife habitat, etc.

Similarly with regard to landscaping and hedge planting, the submitted plan indicates that such hedge planting is envisaged along the western boundary and in the area of the proposed car park, and around the building itself. This will all need to be carefully considered in terms of species, etc and will be a matter that will be dealt with either at the detailed or reserved matter stage. This apart, however, the submitted scheme does indicate that the applicants are aware of the need to introduce sensitive landscaping to reduce the potential impact that this proposal may have on the general area.

There is no doubt that even in its revised position this proposal will have a visual impact on the properties in Grasmere Avenue, however I am satisfied that the applicants have been sensitive to their concerns, evidenced by the agreement to relocate the position of the block in order to reduce that impact.

Policy Issues

Probably the most important policy which relates to this proposal is U1 which significantly states that “proposals for health, social, community, religious and educational facilities will be acceptable in principle provided they are within or adjoining development envelopes of the community to which they serve”. The Inspector accepted that the previous appeal proposal, and therefore by inference this proposal, was compliant with that wording.

The Inspector also observed that the text to that policy did make reference to particular circumstances where no land is available within the development envelope would justify location adjoining the settlement. He considered that policy U1 was still applicable.

His view was also that policy U1 being satisfied meant that a similar statement could be made in respect of policy G1, bearing in mind that the “development was beyond the development envelope would be an exception specified in another policy”.

Loss of Agricultural Land

One of the main reasons the Inspector determined to dismiss the appeals was the fact that the two proposals would result in the loss of 1.6 hectares of Grade II land, which he considered was a “material objection of substance”. He did however accept from the evidence provided that the Grade 2 land in terms of Westridge Farm is relatively small and unlikely to be viable in terms of intensive crop productions. He also accepted that in order for intensive production to take place it would require irrigation from mid summer, which again was unlikely to be viable on such a small area. Finally he observed that the adjoining residential properties would limit the use that could be made of sprays necessary for intensive production.

Therefore it was judged that it was the extensive area of land uptake which he considered to be excessive, and noted that the appellant stated that half the area (0.8 hectares) would be the minimum necessary to accommodate the level of the proposed development. Applicants have now, as will be noted, reduced their land uptake to 1 hectare, a factor which has the added benefit of enabling controls to be applied in terms of any future extensions, etc. I consider that this significant reduction in land uptake is important and represents a more realistic approach, enabling a reduced impact on this important site.

Access and Parking

The access position is the same is that indicated on the previous appeal proposals, and Members will note that the Highway Engineer raises no objection, although obviously he is suggesting relevant conditions, the most important of which is that relating the visibility and site lines. I have already made reference to the effect the visibility and site line will have in terms of loss of hedgerow and the need for some advanced hedge planting. In terms of parking provision the maximum non-operational off-street vehicle parking provision for a development within this use class is space per four bedrooms plus appropriate provision for residential staff. The proposal, albeit in diagrammatic form, indicates a total of 24 parking spaces. This therefore in terms of the guideline provides 12 additional spaces for staff and visiting medical practitioners. The Highways Engineer made no specific reference to level of parking, merely requiring that space should be provided within the site for such purposes.

The Inspector addressed this issue in some detail bearing in mind that the reasons for refusal included reference to car travel. Those previous appeal proposals suggested that about 70 people will be employed to provide care over three shifts, with shift changes being 0800 hours, 1400 hours and 2000 hours. The appellant also indicated that where employees live locally they walk to work, and in any event there is a low level of car ownership among carers.

Given the site’s location on the edge of town, the availability of local employment may be less than had the site been within the centre of a built up area. The Inspector did refer to the fact that the site is nearby a large housing area to the south west, where the opportunity to walk or cycle to work was evident. However, he acknowledged that cross town journeys by these modes would be unlikely.

Reference was made to bus routes which service this area, with particular reference to the number 8 bus which passes the site. The level of service provided by that bus lead him to the view that public transport could provide a realistic means of getting to the site for staff living in the general area, including Seaview and Nettlestone, particularly if the applicants allowed some flexibility in start and finishing times. Ancillary visitors could either be health related professionals or friends and family visiting residents. In terms of health related professionals, these would almost certainly arrive by car although visitors could indeed arrive by public transport.

Although not mentioned in the current application, the appellants at the time indicated that they had their own minibus for taking clients for trips, and possibly to collect staff. Indeed the Inspector makes reference to the then suggested condition that a travel plan should be produced which he considered could identify steps which could be taken to facilitate and encourage access to the site other than by private car on the basis of the opportunities referred to above. Following this assessment he concluded that neither of the appeal schemes would “unacceptably be dependent on the private car for access and therefore neither scheme would be contrary to the national advice in PPG13 nor conflict with Local Plan policies”. He concluded significantly as follows:

“… I saw that Appley Road is a relatively busy road and in my view the traffic generated by either of the appeal proposals would not make much difference to overall traffic levels. Subject to the provision of the necessary site lines, a safe access could be created. Provided that the access was separated from the gardens of adjoining gardens, with space for intervening planting, I see no reason why vehicular movements on the site should disturb adjoining residents.”

Current proposal according to applicants would attract an estimated 80-90 employees who would provide care presumably on the same basis of three shifts as previously described. Whilst Members may consider that 24 parking spaces would be inadequate to cater for this level of staff, given the assessment made above, and with particular reference to the guidelines covering this type of use, that number of parking spaces equates to 12 additional over and above the 12 that would be required for the number of bedrooms being proposed. It could even be argued that 12 additional spaces above guideline figures was excessive, however the sketch layout clearly indicates that these can be provided, particularly in group form, with good quality areas of landscaping around, and therefore I would suggest such a level of provision is considered to be acceptable.

Environmental Nuisance Issues

Members will note the requirement of the Environmental Health Officer, with it being important to appreciate that these requirements have been called for because of the location of the nursing home relative to the Trucast cartilage. The requirement would have been necessary for either location.

Obviously the results of the noise emission study will determine the level of works necessary to protect future residents and is likely to be a cost factor which the applicants will need to embrace. At the time of the appeals, because of the proposed location being more remote from the Trucast site the appellant did not envisage there would be any adverse impact on future residents of the sites, a view which was accepted by the Inspector on the basis of proximity.

This is the one issue which differs from the appeal decisions, but I am satisfied that the condition being suggested is more than adequate to allow the application to go forward and the applicants are fully aware of the implications that may result in compliance with that condition.

Need and Affordability

I consider it is not necessary to raise the issue of need. The evidence provided, with particular reference to the support of the Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust, the Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust and Council’s own Social Services Department is evidence enough, with the Inspector concluding that there is an urgent need for the provision of this type of facility in the Ryde, Seaview and Nettlestone area.

The question of whether the proposal falls under the auspices of affordable housing, referred to in Circular 6/98 and in PPG3, was addressed by the Inspector, and he concluded that the appeals related to the provision of affordable nursing care as distinct from the provision of affordable housing. However he considered such provision was a material consideration in favour of the appeals.

The most significant statement is quoted as follows:

“If I were to allow either appeal it would be necessary to ensure that the site was developed only by an RSL (Registered Social Landlord) such as the appellant, to reflect the weight I have given to affordability. It was agreed that this could be achieved by the imposition of a Grampian style condition precluding development until secure arrangements had been put in place and agreed with the Council to ensure that the accommodation was provided only by an RSL.”

Whilst noting the view of the Inspector I consider that this element would be better dealt with under the auspices of a Section 106 agreement, which would be more binding. The use of such a mechanism would be consistent with the method now used to ensure provision of affordable housing on residential sites. Also, in view of the sensitive nature of the site, it may be appropriate to exercise control, which would effectively prevent the future expansion of land uptake.

Alternative Sites

Again I would not wish to address this issue in any detail, only to suggest that circumstances since the appeal are unlikely to suggest that alternative sites are available any more now than they were then. Inspector stated that affordability appears to be the greatest constraint on the availability of alternative sites, with particular reference to urban area. He concluded that it would be unlikely that the appellant would be able to proceed with the development on an alternative site which was clearly preferable in planning terms.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above I consider that the applicants have addressed those issues of concern identified by the Inspector as being the reason he dismissed the two previous appeals. The revised location of the site, and therefore the block, indicates that the applicants are conscious of the concerns of the adjoining property owners in Grasmere Avenue, with the revised siting having the added benefit of reducing the visual impact, particularly when viewed from the area of Appley Road. All other issues can be adequately dealt with either through a 106 agreement or the use of conditions and therefore I am satisfied that an approval recommendation is appropriate in this case. For Members' information a copy of the submitted plan is attached to this report.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans) (Subject to Section 106 agreement limiting the development of an area of agricultural land not exceeding 1 hectare as indicated on outline planning consent no. TCP/24977/B-P/730/04 for the purposes of accommodating a 48 bed nursing home only which is to be developed and managed by a registered social landlord registered under the appropriate legislation; requiring that the 48 bed nursing home shall not be brought into use until the Green Transport Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and any such agreed Transport Plan thereafter be implemented and subject to monitoring.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years 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 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years 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 building(s) 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	Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use the existing kerb footway to the west of the site serving Grasmere Avenue shall be extended over the frontage of the application site in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by and thereafter constructed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and in the interests of highway safety in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable refuse vehicles and fire appliances to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 24 parking spaces has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Visibility splays of x = 4.5m and y = 90m dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	The 48 bed nursing home hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure covered parking of bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield hoops in line with a scheme adhering to advice contained within Appendix G of the IW Unitary Development Plan to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles in compliance with policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The building to be erected in pursuance of this outline permission shall not exceed two storeys in height and shall be low profile in appearance. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	There shall be no windows in the west facing elevation of the western wing of the proposed building hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring properties in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	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 treatments to be erected along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the application site. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use of the building commences and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations has been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for other measures to ensure that any additional flows do not cause flooding or overloading of the existing system. The building shall not 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 in compliance with policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Construction work shall not begin until a scheme for protecting the proposed residential development from noise from the plant and machinery operated by industry on the adjacent site to the west has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any part of the noise sensitive development is occupied and all necessary works shall be supervised by a competent person. Upon completion of all works testing shall be carried out and a report submitted to the Local Planning Authority to verify the scheme's effectiveness. The works and scheme shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. No alterations to the structure, roof, doors, windows or external facades of the development shall be undertaken without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, to the future occupiers of the development from noise emissions from the neighbouring industrial use in accordance with policy P5 (Reducing Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	Prior to commencement of work a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be prepared by a competent person and shall be designed to ensure it is screened from view from neighbouring countryside and does not unreasonably affect neighbouring properties. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and neighbouring properties in particular in compliance with policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION - A letter be sent to the applicants suggesting that consideration be given to advanced planting of a hedge along the proposed back edge of the visibility splay preferably prior to the submission of any reserved matter or detail application. Such hedge planting should be made up of a mixture of native species to encourage wildlife habitat and is considered necessary to establish itself and therefore provide visual and screening value as soon as possible.

TCP/25416/A P/00653/04 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 30/03/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. P. Smith Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Smarden Wight Homes

Demolition of building; pair of semi-detached houses; vehicular access (revised scheme)

Haven, New Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334HY

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Cllr B Abraham, has raised concerns over the scale and mass of the proposed development and the potential impact it may have upon the street scene.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 12 weeks to the date of the Committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to an outstanding consultation and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a site on the east side of New Road, extending towards the water's edge of Wootton Creek. The site is currently occupied by a derelict detached single storey dwelling, and is adjacent to residential properties to the north and a working boatyard immediately to the south.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25416 - Demolition of existing building and erection of pair of semi-detached houses. Refused 28 March 2003 on the following grounds:

· The proposed building being of excessive mass, size, scale and design, representing an inappropriate and over-dominant form of development.

· The external balcony resulting in development detrimental to the amenities and privacy of the adjoining residential properties.

· Inadequate and deficient details submitted with regards to assessment of potential flood risk.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the demolition of a detached single storey building and the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses with shared vehicular access. The design incorporates a three storey element on the northern half of the building, and includes two balconies at first floor level to the rear. The proposed is set back 1 metre from the building line of the existing dwelling, and extends a further 3 metres to the rear. The existing dwelling occupies the whole width of the plot from the northern to the southern boundaries, and the proposed seeks to move the building away from these boundaries. The current dwelling is constructed of corrugated sheet wallcladding with a corrugated sheet roof. The proposed building is shown to be constructed of facing brick at ground floor level, timber or similar cladding boarding from first floor level under an artificial slate roof.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope for Wootton as defined within the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered as follows:

S1 - New Development Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas

S2 - Brownfield Sites

S6 - High Standard of Design

S7 - Provision of Housing Units on the Isle of Wight

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G6 - Development Areas liable to Flooding

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Southern Water have confirmed that there are public sewers crossing this site, and that the exact position of such must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. No new building or new tree planting should be located over or within a minimum of 3 metres of the public sewer. They have raised the possibility that the public sewer may be diverted, as long as no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity would result, and that the work is carried out at the developer's expense and to the satisfaction of Southern Water Services Ltd. It has been requested that a planning condition is included that prevents any construction work being carried out until the diversion of the sewer has been completed. They have confirmed that the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer requires the formal approval of Southern Water Services Ltd. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site, and no surface water should be discharged to the foul sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. They confirm that there has been a number of flooding and other sewerage incidents on and around this site, some due to blockages, the remainder for other operational reasons.

The Environment Agency raises no objection in principle.

The Isle of Wight Council Tree Officer has raised no objection to the removal of trees on site.

The Isle of Wight Council Environmental Health Department raised no adverse comments to the previous scheme and therefore further consultation was not deemed necessary.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

The Parish Council registers its objections to this application on the following grounds:

The proposal is too tall and represents overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal is out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Flooding is of concern in this area with the sewers being overloaded with the rainwater on occasions and emitting raw sewage into the gardens of creekside properties.

The proposed balconies would be detrimental to the privacy of adjacent residents.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted six letters of objection. The points raised are summarised as follows:

Size of plot is only suitable for one dwelling.

Three storey high building is not in keeping with surrounding area and constitutes overdevelopment of the site.

Building design is out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Potentially exacerbated flooding problems.

Loss of privacy and overlooking to adjacent properties from balconies.

Potential damage to water main running through the site.

Potential for overlooking two neighbouring properties should the mezzanine area at third floor level be fully floored.

Development will impact on neighbouring business in respect of restricting boat movements.

Development will create greater conflict with regards to mooring.

Potential conflict between new residents of the proposed and the activities carried out at the boatyard.

No details submitted with regards to the clearance of asbestos currently on site.

One objector questions the accuracy of the plans.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Proposal before Members seeks consent for the demolition of an existing single storey detached building and the erection of pair of semi-detached houses and vehicular access.

The application follows an earlier refusal for a pair of semi-detached houses. I am satisfied the proposal has tackled the original reasons for refusal.

The proposal has decreased the width of the dwelling in comparison to the current building on site, which occupies the full width of the plot. This has taken the building one metre off the boundary, and a total of over 3 metres from the neighbouring property, Maydene. The proposal has been decreased in width by approximately 1.5 metres (not including the side porch) when compared to the earlier refused scheme. The revised proposal has not only decreased the size of the building, but by removing the gable ended roof that initially added to the over dominant appearance of the previous, a less imposing scheme is now evident. There is no prevailing pattern and style of development in this locality, with New Road being flanked by a variety of house sizes and styles. In this respect therefore, I am of the opinion that this design, though differing from neighbouring properties, is suitable for this area, and does not detract from its visual amenity. Consideration has been given to the specific location of the site, and elements of the building's design characterises its waterside locality.

Concerns have been raised regarding the overall height of the proposed, and the incorporation of a 3 storey element. I am satisfied that the building fits in well with the roof heights of adjoining properties, and am not concerned that the height is not appropriate.

The design of the first floor balconies has introduced external screening, which prevents immediate overlooking into neighbouring gardens.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling will fit comfortably within the area and will not adversely impact on the general character of the area. I am of the opinion that the design appropriately addresses the reasons for refusal as set out in the previous planning decision, namely mass, size, scale and design, and privacy of adjoining residential properties. I am satisfied therefore, that the development of this site as indicated is acceptable and that the impact on the area will not be such as to warrant a refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
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	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 D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	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.
5	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	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: (a) 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.
7	The development shall not be brought into use until a shared turning space is provided within the site to enable private cars to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 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.
8	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, works shall be carried out to identify the exact location of the public sewers crossing the site. If the development falls within a minimum of 3 metres of the sewers, plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the proposed diversion of that sewer to achieve the minimum 3 metres separation. The agreed proposal shall be carried out and be fully operational prior to the commencement of any building works on site. Reason: To ensure the required minimum distance is achieved between the building and public sewer system, in order to minimise risk of damage to that local public sewer system and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a)

TCP/12010/M

Operation of Bed and Breakfast facility at Adgestone Vineyard, Upper Road, Adgestone, Isle of Wight

Officer: S Cornwell

Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider whether the operation of a Bed and Breakfast service as part of the general business premises at Adgestone Vineyard is already authorised under a previous planning permission, and if not whether the level of the use is insufficient to trigger a need for formal planning consent, or if it is, how the Local Planning Authority should respond.

Background

In May 2003 a complaint was received by the Enforcement Section alleging an unauthorised change of use of part of the business premises at Adgestone Vineyard with the introduction of a Bed and Breakfast facility. The Area Enforcement Officer visited the site and met with the owner and his planning agent. The information provided by both parties during the site visit can be summarised as follows.

The premises have been used for a vineyard, winery and dwelling including Bed and Breakfast provision by both the original and present owners since 1992.

The premises comprise 4 bedrooms, of which one is used for the owner’s personal use, whilst the other 3 rooms are used as either 3 double en-suite guest rooms or to accommodate 6 single beds.

The Bed and Breakfast facilities comprise approximately 4% of the total business turnover at the vineyard.

The only other room used in association with the guest provision is the owner’s private dining room for breakfasts.

The owner’s family utilise the rooms for approximately 10-11 weeks per year and French students working in the vineyard for work experience occupy the rooms for a further 6-8 weeks per year.

The majority of paying guests stay at the vineyard because of their interest in wine.

The use of the rooms for Bed and Breakfast is dependent on the time of year, mostly during the peak holiday season and weekends.

The planning agent further stated that the Bed and Breakfast facility was permitted by the Planning Inspector in his decision letter of February 2002 relating to the appeals against the two Enforcement Notices and the refusal of planning permission. That document provided additional residential accommodation subject to the condition that the additional accommodation should only be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling of which it formed part.

At the end of the site visit, the owner and planning agent were advised that after further research they would be informed of how the Local Planning Authority would respond to the matter. In June 2004 the Local Planning Authority wrote to the owner advising him of the outcome of the investigation. The Local Planning Authority’s position is that the Inspector’s decision of February 2002 did not consider the planning merits of the Bed and Breakfast operation from these premises. The original planning application did not refer to Bed and Breakfast accommodation but sought permission for “additional residential accommodation”. The only reference to Bed and Breakfast appeared in one of the Enforcement Notices, but this Notice was quashed on the grounds of ambiguity and uncertainty. Therefore, the Inspector did not apply himself to the question of provision of Bed and Breakfast facilities.

It is the Local Planning Authority’s interpretation that in recognition of these facts the Inspector imposed a condition on the additional residential accommodation restricting it to residential use only. The level of use as indicated during the meeting held in 2003 is such that the property owner has now passed the threshold and gone beyond any incidental use to the point where it is considered that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required.

The owner was consequently invited to make an application for a Lawful Development Certificate if he wished to formally challenge this interpretation. To date, no such application has been received. Accordingly, based on the information which has been assessed it is the belief of the Local Planning Authority that a breach of Planning Control has occurred and consideration must be given as to how this should be resolved.

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered relevant.

Strategic Policies:

S10

Detailed Policies:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

C2 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C15 - Appropriate Agricultural Diversification

T2 - Tourism Related Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

Members should also be aware of the planning history relating to this site, specifically the February 2002 planning appeals through which one of the Enforcement Notices was quashed, the second was upheld with variations and the third appeal against the refusal of planning permission was allowed in part and dismissed in part. The elements for which planning permission was granted were the retention of the pergola and decking at the rear of the vineyard building, the use of land for the keeping of a horse, the erection of a greenhouse, the retention of alterations relocating tea room and providing additional residential accommodation, and external alterations.

Subsequent to the appeal decision Members have approved the following elements.

Retention of animal shelters, proposed tractor/implement shed and storage building (March 2003).

Formation of car park (April 2003)

Variation of condition increasing seating numbers from 18 to 36 (April 2003)

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the premises in connection with a Bed and Breakfast operation. Time period for compliance 4 months.

2. To invite (without prejudice to the final decision) a planning application for the continued use of part of the premises in connection with the operation of a Bed and Breakfast facility, with the request that the application be submitted within 28 days.

3. To note the contents of this report with regards to the indicated breach of Planning Control but to resolve to take no further action on this point.

Conclusion

I consider that the Local Planning Authority has adequately identified that a breach of Planning Control has occurred. To date the operator has given no indication that he wishes to resolve the matter through the submission of either a Lawful Development Certificate, thereby testing the Council’s interpretation of the planning situation, or through the submission of a formal planning application. However, this lack of any response should not dictate the Local Planning Authority’s reaction. Rather, in the light of the assessment that formal planning consent is required, Government guidance suggests that the Local Planning Authority should consider whether such a facility is likely to carry support were an application made. It would be this assessment which would offer guidance as to whether some form of enforcement action were appropriate, whether an application should be invited or whether the Council resolve to take no further action.

The decisions taken by the Planning Committee in March and April 2003 have substantially changed the circumstances from when the Planning Inspector made his decision of February 2002 as the operator has now effectively acquired the element for which planning permission had been withheld. In the light of those recent decisions it is my belief that an application to retain the Bed and Breakfast element would be likely to carry Officer support, and on that basis I do not consider that the enforcement option should be adopted. I recognise that the operator has been given the opportunity of making an application but to date has declined this invitation. I would however suggest that if the invitation came from the Planning Committee this may carry some additional weight, and I propose that this is the course of action which Members adopt. However, in the event that no such application is forthcoming I see no other remedy than to note the situation and take no further action. In that circumstance I would advise that a strong letter be sent to the property owner.

Human Rights

Recommendation

2. To invite (without prejudice to the final decision) a planning application for the continued use of part of the premises in connection with the operation of a Bed and Breakfast facility, with the request that the application be submitted within 28 days.

(b)

TCP/18304/A

Service of an Urgent Works Notice to protect Grade II listed granary – Gotten Manor, Gotten Lane, Chale.

Officer: Lee Byrne

Tel: 01983 823577

Summary

To consider whether an Urgent Works Notice should be served to provide temporary works of support (involving propping and shoring with timber) and make the structure weathertight (the provision of a waterproof cover) in order to prevent the destruction of a listed building.

Background

The granary forms part of a group of historic buildings located on the north side of Gotten Lane, Chale some 800m east of the junction with the Newport Road (B3339). The granary was recognised for its special architectural and historic interest in 1986 when it was designated a grade II listed building. The list description suggests its date of construction is circa 1800 and that it has been constructed reusing old materials, such as the floorboards dating from the seventeenth century. The granary is located immediately adjacent Chale manor house, within what appears to be the core of the farmstead that also includes the listed manor house with its linked brewhouse and dairy and a separately listed barn. The list description of the manor house suggests the site was an ancient manorial site and has been recorded in the Doomsday Book.

In February 2002, the owner of the granary contacted the local authority informing us of its poor condition. Subsequently the owner submitted a structural report to the local authority suggesting the granary should be “…. carefully dismantled and rebuilt….”. The report also made reference to the problems associated with the location of the structure within the farm complex and because of this it proposed that it should be relocated outside of the farm complex. The Conservation Officer explained this proposal was not considered acceptable in view of the value of preserving the farm complex. It was also suggested at this time that the owner submit a listed building consent application for the dismantling and rebuilding of the structure in its existing location.

However, no listed building consent application was submitted and the condition of the granary continued to deteriorate. Over the following months the owners and local authority corresponded but despite the owner initially making an attempt to prop and weatherproof the building the granary still remained in very poor condition with significant risk of further decay.

The response from the owners has generally been discouraging, although in October 2003 the owner did respond to a Requisition for Information from the Local Authority Legal Department and in this letter the owner suggested they were in the process of appointing an historic buildings advisor to assist them. The owner was subsequently informed that although this sounded promising, the condition of the granary was deteriorating rapidly and even after a local authority building control officer had visited the site offering further guidance in respect of the type of temporary props and coverings that should be applied, no further works of repair or support have taken place.

Unitary Development Plan

Policy B4 (Demolition of Listed Buildings) states there is a general presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings.

Financial Implications

The Councils Property Services department have kindly provided an approximation of the cost of the works considered necessary which is likely to be in the region of £500.00 -£1,000.00. If the owners decide not to undertake the works themselves, section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 enables the local authority to carry out the work and under section 55 of the same Act seek to recover this cost from the owner.

However, the local authority has no specific budget to fund the works and in the event of non-compliance with the notice, monies would have to be identified in order that the works could be carried out.

Members should note that if they were minded to authorise the service of the notice, a final warning letter would be sent allowing 14 days for the owner to provide written confirmation that they are prepared to undertake the works. If the owner agrees and subsequently undertakes the work specified by the local authority within a 3 week period, there would be no financial burden to the authority.

Options

To authorise the service of the notice which would enable a final warning letter to be issued specifying 14 days for written confirmation from the owner of their acceptance to undertake the work within a 3 week period to the satisfaction of the local authority. In the event of receiving no response from the owner the local authority should utilise the powers under section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 enabling the local planning authority to carry out works for the preservation of the listed building at a cost no greater than £1,000.00. To use the powers under section 55 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to recover the costs incurred from the property owner.

Not serve an Urgent Works Notice and take no further action.

Conclusion

Officers have indicated to the owner they would be prepared to recommend the repair of the granary by careful dismantling and rebuilding and that these works would require listed building consent. However, the granary should not be allowed to fall into a state of disrepair in an uncontrolled manner that is likely to result in the loss of important historic fabric and which could present major problems in its reconstruction.

In view of the above, members are asked to give consideration to the following statement taken from section 6 (Building conservation and the historic environment) of the Unitary Development Plan. “The council attaches the utmost importance to the preservation and protection of its listed structures. In pursuit of its policies the council may take appropriate legal action including the use of emergency repairs to preserve buildings and structures and to prevent deterioration where it appears this is the first step towards their ultimate demolition”.

Given the circumstances outlined above I consider that a final warning letter be sent which if not successful is followed by formal action under section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 by the local planning authority to carry out the necessary works.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to serve the Urgent Works Notice 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. It is recognised the service of the Urgent Works Notice may be an interference with the owners human rights but this has to be balanced against the responsibility of the local planning authority to protect listed buildings. The action is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

To authorise the service of the notice which would enable a final warning letter to be issued specifying 14 days for written confirmation from the owner of their acceptance to undertake the work within a 3 week period to the satisfaction of the local authority. In the event of receiving no response from the owner the local authority should utilise the powers under section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 enabling the local planning authority to carry out works for the preservation of the listed building at a cost no greater than £1,000.00. To use the powers under section 55 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to recover the costs incurred from the property owner.

(c)

TCP/22959/A-P/00952/99

Single storey rear extension at 10 Denness Road, Lake, Sandown, Isle of Wight

Officer: S Cornwell

Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider an offer made; by the owner of the property which would resolve the current breach of planning control short of the demolition of the entire extension as required by the enforcement notice.

Background

In March 1999 a retrospective planning application for a single storey extension at the rear of 10 Denness Road, Lake was refused. A further application was refused in July of that year and enforcement action authorised requiring the removal of the unauthorised works within a period of three months. The degree of works already undertaken consisted of the outer walls.

An Enforcement Notice was served dated 17 November 1999 with an initial effective date of 6 January 2000. An appeal was submitted against both the refusal of planning permission and the Enforcement Notice, and this was determined with the Inspector’s decision letter dated 12 April 2000. The Inspector dismissed both appeals but slightly altered the wording of the Enforcement Notice. Accordingly, the new compliance date was set at 12 July 2000. The reason that the appeal was dismissed related to the size, scale and impact of the extension on the adjoining property (No. 12).

Following the Inspector’s decision the Local Planning Authority entered into correspondence with the agent acting on behalf of the property owner to enquire if an intermediate solution could be found. For Members’ information the size of the extension took it to just over 70 cubic metres and the strict interpretation of planning law would require the total demolition of the single storey extension rather than the removal of an element of the building which would then bring it below the permitted development threshold. Members will be aware that such a structure of a lesser size could be built without the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority having first been obtained.

The Local Planning Authority put forward a proposal through which the property owner would have removed a 1.2m wide by 6.4m long section of the conservatory that abutted the boundary to No. 12. The property owner made a counter argument that he remove a section 1.2m wide by 2.5m long on the basis that this would then bring the cubic content of the extension (having deducted the volume of an original building on site) to below the permitted development right allowance.

Since that time the Local Planning Authority has been unable to continue with any discussions with the property owner as the agent indicated he was no longer acting for them, and when officers visited the property no one appeared to be there. The shell of the extension remains as it did when the appeal was processed, partially built but not completed.

The Local Planning Authority has recently been approached by the property owner seeking to resolve the situation and again making the proposal to remove the 2.6m section of the side extension, and has this time supplied a copy of a letter from the adjoining property owner indicating that they have no objection to this as a resolution to the problem. I attach copies of plans showing the size of the extension and the element to be removed. The reason the

original planning application was refused related to the size, design and general appearance and position of the rear and side extension in relation to No. 12, which it was considered would create conditions likely to have a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of that property.

Relevant UDP policies:

D1 (Design)

H7 (Extensions and Alterations of Existing Properties).

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To continue with the current enforcement action and require nothing less than the total demolition of the extension as compliance with the Enforcement Notice.

2. To advise the property owner that the Local Planning Authority still maintains that the full length of the extension adjacent the boundary to No. 12 should be removed and that it will accept nothing less than this before agreeing not to pursue the enforcement action any further. Time period required for removal of side element 3 months.

3. To indicate to the property owner that the Local Planning Authority will accept the removal of an element of the extension 1.2m wide by 2.5m in depth which lies adjacent to the side boundary as sufficient measures to bring the extension to within the permitted development rights threshold as an acceptable solution and not to pursue the enforcement action any further. Time period required for removal of side element 3 months.

Conclusion

The existing Enforcement Notice requires the total demolition of the extension. However, once this action has been undertaken the householder could then begin reconstructing virtually all of the extension which now exists. I do not believe that Members would wish to put a property owner through such an exercise, and it was with this thought in mind, together with addressing the reasons for refusal, that the Local Planning Authority has been seeking to remove that specific element of the extension which lies immediately adjoining the property boundary between Nos. 10 and 12 Denness Road. The property owner has come up with a proposal which in volume terms would take the remaining element below 70 cubic metres. Although the Local Planning Authority would have liked to have seen an additional element removed, I am mindful of the letter which has been received from the adjoining property owner (whose amenities the Council’s action was intended to protect) and on that basis I propose that we agree to the offer of the property owner and bring the matter to a close.

Human Rights

In coming to this conclusion 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. Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation not to pursue the enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the adjoining property owner, these have to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of the owner of No. 10 to develop their property as they wish. This view should also be taken in context of the letter written by the owner of No. 12. Under those circumstances I consider that the decision not to pursue the enforcement action in response to the property owner’s offer is a proportionate response and in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

(d)

TCP/25666/B

Refusal of Planning Permission: Formation of vehicular access and hard standing at Flora Cottage, Morton Road, Brading

Officer: L Harper

Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the land for vehicular access and hard standing and reinstating the land to its original condition.

Background

On 22 April 2004 planning permission for the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding was refused at Flora Cottage, Morton Road, Brading on the grounds of highway safety. On 1 June 2004 a complaint was received by the Enforcement Section concerning unauthorised works to create a hard standing and vehicular access at Flora Cottage, Morton Road, Brading. This property is located on the main Sandown Road close to the traffic light junction. The Owners of Flora Cottage were informed that the excavation of the land to form a hard standing and vehicular access was unauthorised and a breach planning control. The Owners stated that they had undertaken the engineering works to demonstrate to the Highways Department that they could satisfy the highways design criteria to enable a vehicle to turn on the site and enter and leave the highway in a forward gear. The owners were reminded that a planning application for the proposed formation of a vehicular access and hard standing was refused planning permission in April 2004 and that they should cease any additional activity on the site and protect the surrounding land from slippage

On 4 June 2004, the Owners informed the Area Enforcement Officer that they had requested the Highways Department to review the feasibility of the vehicular access and hard standing and been informed that that the original decision to deny consent remained valid. Under the circumstance the owners informed the Area Enforcement Officer that they would appeal the refusal of planning permission and cease any further activity and tidy the site.

On the 7 June 2004 the original complainant informed the Enforcement Section that the excavated area was being utilized for parking. The Area Enforcement Officer contacted the owners and informed them of the additional complaint. The owners stated that the land was not in use and that the only activity undertaken since 4 June 2004 was tidying the site area. The Area Enforcement Officer undertook a site visit on the evening of the 7 June 2004 and at the time the land was not in use.

Notwithstanding the dispute relating to the commencement of the use of the facility it is considered that the works have created the potential for a significant highway danger lying as it does in proximity to a light controlled junction.

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies apply

Strategic Policies

S6 All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

Detailed Policies

D1 Standards of Design

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To invite without prejudice to the final decision a further planning application which should be submitted within twenty eight days.

2. To await the submission of a planning appeal and its subsequence determination before deciding whether to embark on any form of enforcement action.

3. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation the use of the vehicular access and further works associated with the function of the hardstanding. To require the reinstatement of the land area to its former topography and the closure of the open boundary to Morton Road.

Conclusion

The principal material consideration in this matter is that the owners undertook the engineering operation after having received the refusal of planning permission for the formation of the vehicular access and hard standing. The Highways Department considers the formation of an access in proximity to the signalised junction at Yarbrough Cross a potentially critical traffic hazard. An evaluation of the existing access location indicates that there are no immediate design solutions or planning conditions that the Highways Department or Local Planning Authority could impose that would overcome or address the major departure from policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Whilst I note the indication by the property owners that they propose to appeal no submission has been made to date and if unsuccessful a dismissal would not on its own remedy the breach. Accordingly I believe that enforcement action should be authorised

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation, consideration has 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 continued unauthorised use within the immediate locality has been carefully considered. The proposal to serve an enforcement notice is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council to remedy the breach of planning control and is made in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services