PAPER B2

 

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/9667/U

Mr & Mrs L Gustar against refusal for demolition of buildings and outline for residential development at Hosiden Besson, Binstead Road, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/6956/G

Mr K Cox against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for 2 bungalows, land adjacent Fenneys, Blackbridge Road, Freshwater

 

 

TCP/11608/F

Beak Brothers against refusal for conversion of cattle shed to form livery.

 

 

TCP/26225

Mr E D Prime against refusal of conversion of room into integral garage and vehicular access at 51 Bernard Road, Cowes

 

 

TCP/26112

Mr & Mrs C Scott against refusal for demolition of outbuilding and outline for end of terrace house land adjacent 1 Sherwood Road, Newport

 

 

TCP/10306/G

Mrs S A King against refusal of outline for a chalet bungalow land rear of Thurstons, Playstreet Lane, adjacent 102 Pellhurst Road, Ryde

 

 

2.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

 

No new dates to report

 

 

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

 

(a)

 

TCP/25248/A

 

Mr B Button against refusal for two storey extension at 36 Warwick Street, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 12 December 2003.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Allowed – 26 May 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with special reference to visual impact.

 

 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The proposed extension would be of a reasonably modest scale and would not look unduly out of place.

 

·         The proposal would fit in acceptably with its surroundings and would be more attractive than the existing extensions to the appeal property and adjoining houses.

 

·         The development would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and would not conflict with UDP policies that seek to prevent such harm.

 

 

·         The back wall of the proposed extension would not extend beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring property in the terrace and there would be no adverse visual impact on the occupants of that property.

 

·         The extension would not extend sufficiently far towards the property to the south so as to appear overbearing.

 

·         There would be no unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of those nearby and the development would not conflict with the UDP policies that seek to prevent such harm.

 

 

 

(b)

 

TCP/10563/K

 

Miss A Bishop against refusal for demolition of hotel and construction of 5 houses and three/four storey block of 32 flats at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 23 May 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 27 May 2004

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the proposed development would lead to an unacceptable loss of hotel accommodation.

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

·         Whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for its future occupants and neighbouring occupiers, with special reference to privacy, outlook and visual impact.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         There is no necessity that improvement of the proprietor’s accommodation should result in the loss of five lettable bedrooms as there is already a residential annexe.

 

·         The small lettable bedrooms could be merged to create rooms of an acceptable size and the hotel could still provide 13 rooms.

 

·         Policy T5 clearly applies and the development would lead to unacceptable loss of hotel accommodation.

 

 

·         No convincing case has been made by the appellant to demonstrate on viability grounds that the premises could not reasonably be retained as a hotel.

 

·         No attempt has been made to market the hotel to establish with more certainty whether future owners could be found to invest in the premises.

 

·         Loss of the hotel alone would not be substantially detrimental to the Island’s tourist economy, but a consistent approach towards applications in breach of T5 is necessary to ensure no cumulative loss of hotel accommodation.

.

 

·         The frontage houses would appear as an intrusive feature substantially out of accord with the character and appearance of the area

 

·         The loss of the stone wall would add to the harm.

 

·         The height and bulk, proximity to property boundaries and lack of substantial space for gardens and landscaping would result in a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.

 

·         The development would conflict with the UDP policies which seek to prevent harm to the character and appearance of the area.

 

·         The three storey element along most of the length of the rear garden of the house to the north would appear excessively over-dominant and intrusive.

 

·         There would be unacceptable loss of privacy or perceived loss of privacy significantly greater than currently caused by overlooking from the hotel.

 

·         The proximity of the property to the west would cause unacceptable limited outlook from the bedroom windows and unacceptable loss of privacy. 

 

·         Redevelopment of the site to the west in accordance with the approved scheme would only be likely to partially alleviate this harm.

 

·         The proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for its future occupants and the neighbouring occupiers and would not accord with the UDP policies.

 

 

 

(c)

 

TCP/10563/L

 

Miss A Bishop against refusal for change of use of hotel and self-contained annexe to dwelling and self-contained annexe, Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) 2 March 2004

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 27 May 2004

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the proposed development would lead to an unacceptable loss of hotel accommodation.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The loss of the hotel premises would be undesirable for all the reasons given on the appeal for redevelopment of the site, and the proposal conflicts with UDP policy.

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.