PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE B

TUESDAY 22 JULY 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT 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 JULY 2003

1.	TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW	Ryde	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/08808/E P/00857/03 land adjacent St Andrews Street Community Hall, St. Andrews Street, Cowes, PO31	Cowes	Conditional Approval
3.	TCP/16040/G P/00964/03 new cottage on land between 16 and 20, Church Road, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin	Unconditional Approval
4.	TCP/16931/E P/00921/03 Cherry House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NB	Ryde	Refusal
5.	TCP/17741/B P/00218/03 land at Lee Farm, Main Road, Wellow, Yarmouth, PO410TD	Shalfleet	Conditional Approval
6.	TCP/19499/G P/01121/03 5 Lugley Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305HD	Newport	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/21969/B P/01067/03 West End Cottage, Steephill Cove, Ventnor, PO381UG	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/24977/A P/00980/03 land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde, PO33	Ryde	Refusal
9.	TCP/24989/B P/01246/03 26 Horestone Rise, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345DB	Seaview	Refusal
10.	TCP/25200/A P/00770/03 Valletta, Heathfield Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355UW	Bembridge	Refusal
11.	TCP/25339/B P/00958/03 Cliff Cottage, Seven Sisters Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381XA	Ventnor	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 22 JULY 2003

(a) E/11492S York Avenue Garage EAST COWES

(b) TCP/17575E Sol Training BOULDNOR

(c) E/25477 34 Mayfield Drive NEWPORT

(d) Interpretation of Planning Conditions

1.

TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde South West Registration Date: 16/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Toogood Plastics Demolition of warehouse and dwelling; construction of 9 dwellings 1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject to a number of representations from local residents and it is considered Committee determination is appropriate.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application has taken nine and a half weeks to process and is a minor application. It has taken more than eight weeks because of the need to take the application to Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former milk depot that was recently used as storage and distribution unit for plastic building components which is situated on eastern side of West Street immediately north east of junction with Milligan Road. The site comprises mainly two storey warehouse building and some residential accommodation covering virtually entire site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A certificate of lawful use was granted in October 1997 for use of former milk processing depot for storage and distribution of plastic building components with ancillary retailing.

Consent granted in May 1998 for conversion of part of building to form dwelling unit.

Further application seeking consent for alterations and change of use of loft/storage area to form flat approved February 2000.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application seeks detailed consent for demolition of warehouse, clearance of site and construction of nine dwellings.

Plans show L shaped building, having double road frontage on to both Milligan Road and West Street. The building itself would be constructed hard to edge of pavement. The development will comprise six two-bedroom terraced units with three single bedroom flatted units immediately adjacent the road junction.

The residential units would be two-storey with flatted corner unit comprising additional storey at road junction. Externally building would comprise buff and red brickwork underneath natural slate roof. No off street parking is provided.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S1 New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas

G1 Development Envelopes

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development Within Site

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Comments of Highway Engineer not received at time of preparing report.

Comments of Contaminated Land Officer are awaited.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Twelve letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

The development provides no off street parking and will therefore increase on street traffic pressure.

Implications for highway safety in locality.

Loss of sunlight and privacy.

Increased traffic movement associated with new development.

Loss of industrial floor space which is capable of being served by local workforce.

Overdevelopment of site.

No play space for children.

Out of keeping (scale) with locality.

Crime and disorder implications.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Given the site's location there is no objection in principle to removal of this non-conforming commercial use which itself has been a generator of traffic in the locality and its replacement with residential accommodation.

In scale and mass terms the proposal is not considered inappropriate reflecting two-storey scale of development in locality and whilst three-storey element is proposed on the corner this provides relief to the elevational detail and it is considered successfully turns corner from West

Street into Milligan Road. Whilst proposal involves building to edge of pavement, this feature is not in itself unusual characteristic in locality and accordingly no issue is raised on this particular point.

In terms of impact on adjoining residents it is considered that main rearward facing (eastern) windows to main block are sufficient distance (9 metres) to common boundary to minimise any adverse impact from overlooking or loss of privacy. Also given distances to common boundaries, proposal, it is felt, will not over dominate to unacceptable extent surrounding residents. The point should be made that existing warehouse building covers majority of site and proposal in building towards road frontage will open up rear of site with loss of building and provision of individual garden spaces. It is felt that this will substantially improve outlook for surrounding residents given size and type of structure currently on site.

With regards to lack of off street parking, in accordance with adopted Unitary Development Plan policy site is located within Zone 2 where adopted standards do not necessarily require any off-street parking provision to be made. Therefore no sustainable objection can be raised with regard to proposals lack of off-street parking. Indeed there are recent examples of development approved in locality which comply with policy in providing no parking facilities. Prospective occupiers will be aware of this situation and make informed choices with regards to practicality of car ownership. As the proposal does not provide any off-street parking no direct comment can be made as to highway safety matters directly attributable to this particular development.

In view of the above comments I do not consider there is any reasonable planning objection to development of this site which represents windfall site in terms of providing additional residential accommodation.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that development will not detract from character of locality or have unacceptable impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
4	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, Class A 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.
5	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 buildings are 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.

2.

TCP/08808/E P/00857/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Medina Registration Date: 06/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Island Community Church Continued siting of double decker bus to be used as a play bus & coffee bar land adjacent St Andrews Street Community Hall, St. Andrews Street, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member Councillor Pearson considers that the issues of disturbance to neighbours raised by this application should be debated by the Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The processing of this application has taken eleven weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of the need to ensure receipt of all consultee comments and need for determination by the Committee with the 22 July 2003 meeting being the first available following completion of these procedures.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a gravel car parking area situated on the northern corner of the junction of St Andrews Street with Bridge Road. In detail application relates specifically to the retention of a red double decker play bus which is located in the north eastern area of the car park approximately 3.5 metres off that boundary.

The car park itself serves the St Andrews Street Community Hall to the north west. Further to the north east is a playground area with play equipment. On the south western side of St Andrews Street are traditional long established residential properties. The area itself is characterised by a mixture of industrial and established residential development.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In April 2000 temporary planning consent was granted for the siting of a double decker bus to be used as a playbus and coffee bar with that consent expiring on 31 March 2003. That consent was also subject of three further conditions restricting times of use to between 19:30 hours and 23:00 hours daily, provision for the disposal of litter and turning space to be provided to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is not an application to renew the previous consent as it was received after the expiry date therefore it is being considered on the basis of the continued use of the vehicle.

In support of the application applicant confirms that consent is sought for a further three year period. Other supporting matters are referred to as follows:

"The bus is currently being used as a youth drop in centre on Friday evenings between the hours of 8pm to 10.30pm during school term times and also for children's Sunday School activity on Sunday mornings from 10.30 to 12 noon.

The youth project has been running for nearly six years. It is a voluntary service supported jointly by the Churches Together in Cowes although administered by Cowes Community Church and is very popular with a certain type of youngster group who would otherwise be roaming the streets on dark evenings. It has made a considerable impact in the town and is a popular venue helping to control youth activities with the full support of the local police. The project has also been supported financially in the past by Cowes Town Council and has the full backing of the Cowes Community Partnership.

The bus is about to be repainted green and funding is in place for this to be done. Whilst it serves a very important function for the youth of the town a more permanent base for these activities is being explored with the assistance of the Community Partnership. In the meantime however, we trust that this application will be looked on favourably in order that the facilities it houses can continue to operate to the benefit of the community."

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in following:

Circular 5/94 - Planning and Crime.

Circular 11/95 - The Use of Planning Conditions in Planning Permissions.

Relevant policies within the UDP are as follows:

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

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

P5 - Reducing the Impact of Noise.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of a 43 signature petition headed as follows:

"We are aware that there is a planning application (TCP/08808E/P00857/03) for the continued siting of the red bus at St Andrews Street Community Hall as a play bus and coffee bar. We the residents of this area object strongly to this. Since it appeared in our landscape we have been blighted by vandalism, noise, underage drinkers and abuse."

A breakdown of the contents of the petition is as follows: Fifteen signatures from residents of Bridge Road, fourteen from residents of St Andrews Street, three from residents of Medina Road, five from residents of York Street, four from residents of Thetis Road and one each from residents of Brunswick Road and Pelham Road.

Application has also been the subject of three individual letters, one from resident of York Street, one from resident of Granville Road and one from resident of Newport Road. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Unsociable behaviour by children when dispersing from the bus, with particular concerns relating to loud noise, urinating and committing damage to parked cars.

Damage being caused to new equipment on the adjacent play area.

Suggestion that alcoholic drink is consumed.

Need to call upon the police.

One detailed letter from a St Andrews Street resident is quoted in part as follows:

"I hope that you are aware of the difficulties that have occurred over the last few years with the "clientele" of this operation. The police have been called on frequent occasions for various reasons. Damage has been caused to vehicles in the surrounding area and pornographic literature has been pasted to people's windows. While the operators state they patrol the area they appear to have no control over what actually happens when the clientele are away from the bus stop. They have in the past actually resorted to closing the bus for a period due to the behaviour of the clientele. Surely an admission that they are not able to control them.

When the bus is operating, which it does not during school holidays (which I would have thought was a more appropriate time to stay open if it is to continue to operate) the surrounding area becomes a no go area for the residents. Large groups of young people congregate and wander the area shouting and swearing. I personally do not even bother to go out on a Friday evening having encountered these groups when the bus began operating and being intimidated and threatened. I know two people from this street who have sold their houses and moved from the area for this reason."

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Council's Architectural Liaison Officer comments as follows:

"Following consultation with local Officers we have no objection to the application.

The local feeling is that the bus does provide a service for young people and that they have received very few calls in the last two and a half years regarding problems. What calls they have received have been when a few of the young people have been a bit noisy when going home."

EVALUATION

Whilst this is not a renewal because the application was submitted after the expiry of the temporary period effectively it should be considered on that basis with the previous temporary consent being granted to establish a trial run over a three year period within which any potential detrimental effect on the area could be assessed. The original application did not receive any third party representations and the Town Council raised no objection. It was considered at the time that this type of use could have a detrimental effect on the character of the area and therefore a temporary permission was thought appropriate.

The assessment therefore in respect of this second application is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to suggest that trial period has created problems sufficiently serious and planning related to sustain a reason to refuse this application. The level of representations, with particular reference to the petition, would, on the face of it, suggest that the three year use of this bus has resulted in general disturbance in the area in the form of noise and antisocial behaviour with that effect mainly relating in the comings, and particularly the goings following closure of the bus, to the surrounding area. Suggestion is that the use may generate crowds of noisy youngsters, some of which leads to unsocial behaviour.

The difficulty is weighing this level of concern against the contrary opinion expressed by the Architectural Liaison Officer who was aware of the petition etc. when he made his comments. He has also consulted with the local police and supports the continued use stating that the only problems have been restricted to a few of the young people being excessively noisy when going home.

Development Control advice contained within national advisory documents recognises the difficulty in:

"rationalising the suggestion that the use may generate crowds of noisy youngsters outside the premises which can lead to rowdyism and the euphemistically labelled unsocial behaviour."

The document goes on to state that:

"the question of social disorder are matters for the police to deal with and that planning should not be concerned with the possibility. On the other hand the "lawful" effects of a land use such as normal comings and goings and indeed waiting outside the premises may be a matter to weigh in the decision making process."

In terms of the view of the police, there is often a line taken to provide two benefits, namely a) it takes youngsters off the streets and b) they are within a facility where they can be readily located. In general, appeal case law tends to take the view that the effect of land use which could lead to breaches of the law are best left to the appropriate authorities to deal with.

Circular 5/94 - Planning and Crime does advise that crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are considered, as with other material considerations the weight that is given to it will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case, it may be difficult to substantiate a refusal on the grounds that the use generates excessive noise and antisocial behaviour without the backing of the Architectural Liaison Officer/police authorities despite the fact that local residents have expressed concern following the expiry of the trial period.

Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions would suggest that a second temporary permission should not normally be granted with the only consideration being a permanent consent or a refusal. Given the exceptional circumstances in this case however, it may be advisable for a further temporary consent to be granted bearing in mind that the trial period has been to some extent inconclusive in terms of providing evidence that the use has caused sufficient concern to warrant a refusal. The second reason for suggesting a temporary consent would be the condition of the bus itself which, although is well maintained in appearance terms, is a relatively old bus which could deteriorate and therefore become visually detrimental to the area.

The second issue is times of use and in this regard Members will note that generally the use of the bus terminates at 22:30 hours whereas the conditional consent allows that use to terminate at 23:00 hours. In this regard discussions have taken place with the applicants with a view to placing a limit of 22:00 hours, linked to an earlier commencement of 19:00 hours.

This case does present difficulties in assessing the best way forward with there being a need to weigh the benefits this facility affords the youth of the community against the effect on the existing living environment in the area as claimed by the local residents. I consider on balance the best approach is to grant further temporary consent for three years, as requested, with planning conditions restricting the use. Such restrictions could relate to Friday evenings only being, according to the applicant, the current use, and amending the times of use to between 19:00 hours and 22:00 hours during school term times only. A covering letter could be sent to the organisers flagging up the need to ensure the management of the youth who use the facility, and encouraging quick dispersal following the bus's closure.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant temporary planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above I am satisfied that a further temporary consent for three years is an appropriate course of action in this case given the conflicting views of the local residents and the police. This, coupled with a change in the hours of operation and restricting the use to Friday evenings only, should assist in enabling additional controls to be exercised, reducing the nuisance incidents which have been identified by local residents.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before the 30 September 2006 in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use.
2	The use of the double decker bus as a coffee bar shall take place on Fridays only between 19:00 hours and 22:00 hours. Reason: To protect the amenities of the nearby residential properties in compliance with Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The provision within and in the vicinity of the site for the disposal of litter resulting from the temporary use shall be retained and maintained whilst that temporary use is in operation. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the area and nearby properties.
4	The turning space provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear in relation to this temporary use shall be retained and maintained during the temporary period hereby agreed. Reason: In the interest of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicants strongly advising that they need to ensure management of the youth who use the facility and encouraging their dispersal following the closure of the bus.

3.	TCP/16040/G P/00964/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 10/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr W V Dempsey Retention of stream culvert new cottage on land between 16 and 20, Church Road, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The recommendation is contrary or is conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application is for a minor development and will be decided within 8 weeks if determined at this meeting.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is part of the garden area to a recently constructed cottage located on the southeast side of Church Road with a short frontage onto Priory Road at Shanklin. The dwelling is completed but is unoccupied; its curtilage is bisected by a stream, one of the tributaries which runs into Shanklin Chine. Levels at this point are extreme, a very steeply sloping sided valley on either side.

The area is characterised by low density development, small dwellings in comparatively large curtilages in a sylvan setting.

The dwelling is located close to the front boundary with Church Road, the land falls very steeply behind into the stream and the stream has already been culverted with concrete rings, with a diameter of 1.2 metres forming a culvert of approximately 8 metres in length. The land has been backfilled around the culvert, two head walls have been constructed, one at each end of the culvert and the land moulded around to form natural contours.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In June 1996 planning permission was granted for the dwelling at the site which abuts Church Road and in May 2001 a revised design was approved and subsequently development commenced.

Neither the original scheme nor the revised submission authorised the installation of the 8 metres length of culvert and although shown on the plan it was deleted from the proposals and formed the subject of a separate application which was duly refused on the 16 October 2001 for the following reason:-

1. The retention of the culvert is likely to result in conditions which could adversely affect the efficiency of the existing land drainage regime of this part of the Chine by the retention of a source of blockage and obstruction of a major watercourse which would be contrary to the principles of PPG25 and Policy U11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

A subsequent application which again sought consent for the retention of the culvert but included the formation of a new driveway and turning area of Priory Road was submitted but was refused for the same reason as the previous application but two additional reasons were given including an unacceptable visual intrusion and the endangerment of trees on the site caused through the extensive engineering operations.

An appeal was lodged against the refusal decision of October 2001, the subsequent Enforcement Notice which required the removal of the works within a period of three months, the works being the removal of all spoil infill above and alongside the pipe; the removal of head works including railway sleepers and concrete at either end of the section of pipe; removal of the sections of pipe and restoration of the watercourse and its banks to their original profile and contours.

The appeals against the Enforcement Notice and the refusal of planning permission were unsuccessful. The Inspector dismissed both appeals and upheld the Enforcement Notice and upon the date of the appeal decision, the Enforcement Notice became effective and the compliance period for the above works expired at the end of October 2002. The requirements of the Notice were not met and a further report was considered by the Development Control Committee who inspected the site on the 29 November 2002. The decision of that Committee was to defer the prosecution of the Enforcement Notice and to carry out further investigations regarding drainage, erosion and pollution.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This further application seeks consent once again for the retention of the culvert, bearing in mind the fact that the Environment Agency altered their advice and the attitude of Members following their site inspection.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Policy G4 expects planning applications to take account of ponds, streams and other watercourses whilst Policy G6 will not permit development where flooding problems could arise as a result of the proposed scheme.

PPG25 advises Planning Authorities to apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk and advises that consideration of flooding should not be confined to merely river and coastal flood plains and that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material consideration; that land concerned maybe the application site or elsewhere and there may be flood implications up or down stream.

Environment Agency policy states that culverting should not be considered until other options have been thoroughly explored. The Agency confirms in its written documentation that it is generally opposed to the culverting of watercourses and wherever practical will seek to have culverted watercourses restored to open channels. In addition the Agency accepts that there are cases where culverting may, in practice be unavoidable, such as short lengths for access purposes or where highways cross watercourses, but also indicates that alternatives such as bridges or diversions of the watercourse must have been rigorously considered.

The site is within the Shanklin Conservation Area and is within the designated development envelope.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environment Agency has no objections so long as the culvert is required for vehicular access.

TOWN/COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council recommend approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of support from an adjoining property owner, stating that the culvert has enhanced the area and has halted erosion.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment, but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Members will recall that the culvert is a substantial engineering operation taking the newly formed ground level to a maximum of about 5 metres above the original level of the stream. The concrete rings which have been installed are 1.2 metres in diameter, considerably larger than the culvert situated beneath Priory Road a few metres to the north. The area around the new culvert has been land moulded and substantial head works have been provided at either end together with land retaining works comprising sleepers.

Following the site inspection, advice from the Council's Principal Engineer was sought who considered that the size and length of the culvert in this instance is not unreasonable and that during the time it has been in place, no flooding difficulties nor ponding has occurred creating no difficulties with flooding.

Following the appeal decision, much local objection had been received from the owner of the Chine who wanted the culvert to remain in situ as it was felt that the disruptive action of removing it would create unacceptable problems downstream and a good deal of pollution through waterborne clays and silts which would damage the sensitive nature of the Chine.

It is now felt that the retention of the culvert is preferable to its removal despite the fact that the normal policy of the Council and the Environment Agency is to avoid the culverting of watercourses wherever possible. It is therefore suggested that retrospective consent be granted for the retention of the culvert in this instance.

The Environment Agency do not object so long as the works are required for vehicular access. It clearly is not and I would not wish to encourage any development which seeks to bring vehicles into the Chine as I believe this would cause damage and exacerbate erosion and an adverse visual impact. However, I consider the culverts removal would cause unacceptable and unnecessary damage to the Chine. Although the retention would be contrary to both the Environmental Agency and Council policy, in this instance I consider it is justified.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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

Bearing in mind the culvert has been in place now for approximately 18 months without any occurrences of flooding. The development including the land moulding enhances the Conservation Area and therefore is in accordance with policies D1 and B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

2. RECOMMENDATION - Take no further action with regard to the Enforcement Notice

4.	TCP/16931/E P/00921/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead Registration Date: 07/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571 Applicant: Mr G Yendley Alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) Cherry House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NB

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor Mr Stephens, has requested that the application be determined by the Development Control Committee for the following reasons:

· The area on the adjacent drives has turning and parking which does not cause a detrimental impact to each other.

· The dimensions of the proposed wall are not of significant size to cause problems with vehicular traffic both into and around the respective driveways.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application.

The processing of the application has taken twelve weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of outstanding consultations, and the need for the consideration by the Planning Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a semi-detached property located on the south west side of Binstead Road, approximately 40 metres to the north west of its junction to Mayfield Road. The property makes use of shared vehicular access and turning area with the neighbouring property to the north known as West View.

RELEVANT HISTORY

April 1995 - TCP/16931/B Conditional Approval was granted for the formation of a joint vehicular access and hardstanding at West View and Cherry House.

March 2003 - TCP/16931/D Application for Alterations to the existing vehicular access with the construction of a 6 metre long and 500 mm high wall sub dividing the shared turning area was refused under the delegated procedure on the grounds that a reduction in the turning space would provide inadequate turning for a vehicle to enter and exit the drive in a forward gear, contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the formation of a low brick wall 6 metres in length, the maximum height of 500 mm sub-dividing the shared turning area. The application is the same as TCP/16931/D, however additional turning diagrams have been included and a slightly larger turning area has been indicated. The low brick wall is required in order to protect the services under the hardstanding, these being water, gas and electricity.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policy is TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development). It states that any new road layout, including vehicular access, should be constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled and that there is a proper provision of facilities within the development so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on the grounds of inadequate turning. The Highway Engineer has observed that the erection of the wall is to "provide added safety protection for all underground services". He considers that if this is the case it would appear preferable for the applicant to protect these services by strengthening the existing hardstanding with a stronger concrete mix for example, rather than sacrificing the existing turning and parking areas. Whilst it is appreciated by the Highway Engineer that the plans depict an area just large enough to allow a private vehicle to turn, there is not room "within the site to provide parking outside of this turning area. This would mean any additional visitors to the site would be forced to reverse onto Binstead Road, due to the applicant's car unavoidably blocking the turning area thus creating unacceptable hazard to highway users. The applicant admits that this situation occurs in his letter of 7.02.03."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None to report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of support have been received. The resident of 78 Wellington Road considers the proposal will improve highway safety. The letter of support from the applicant's wife and daughter does not raise any planning issues.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The main considerations when determining the application are policy and the effect that the construction of the wall will have on highway safety.

The property is set back from the road approximately some 6 metres at the closest point and 10 metres at the furthest. The total width of the shared turning area is currently 16.5 metres. The proposed wall is to be sited in the centre of the turning area.

The Highway Engineer considers that the approval of the wall would impinge on highway safety as sufficient turning would not be provided.

A condition was imposed on the original approval stating:

"The joint hardstanding shall be constructed and retained in full to provide one space per dwelling and a combined turning area within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highways at all times in a forward gear to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority."

From my visits to the site the turning area has been blocked by a parked vehicle, therefore in breach of the above condition.

The points that have been raised in the letters of representation tend not to relate to planning issues. The interest of highway safety are considered to be of paramount importance and I therefore have no other option than to recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the application is contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as the development will not allow sufficient space for a vehicle to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear. I also make a second recommendation that the breach of condition 2 on TCP/16931/B be investigated by Enforcement.

1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposed wall will reduce the amount of turning and parking available, resulting in a development that does not provide adequate space to enable vehicles to turn on the site and enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, therefore the interests of road safety are compromised and is contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That Enforcement investigate the Breach of Condition

5.

TCP/17741/B P/00218/03 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth Registration Date: 10/02/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant: Messrs Cowley & Cowley Erection of stable block; conversion of farm buildings into stables & workshops; formation of access track; construction of sand school; outline for 3 holiday lodges & swimming pool (revised application area & relocation of swimming pool) (readvertised application) land at Lee Farm, Main Road, Wellow, Yarmouth, PO410TD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application raises a number of significant issues regarding development in the countryside.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 23 weeks and 3 days to the date of the Committee meeting.

This is beyond the prescribed time limit because of the submission of revised plans and the need to re-advertise and reconsult on the proposal.

SITE AND LOCATION

Overall site large mixed arable/dairy farm, extending to some 131 hectares lying generally between Yarmouth Road, the rear of properties fronting Thorley Street and Wellow and west of Station Road, Ningwood. As well as productive agricultural land, includes several areas of woodland. Landscape mixture of smaller hedged fields and larger arable areas. Area traversed by Thorley Brook, running east to west in the southern part of the farm and the former Newport to Yarmouth railway line which runs east west, dividing the farm into two.

Farmhouse and buildings located in the central southern part of the site, at the rear of residential properties fronting the B3401, about 1.4 kms west of its junction with Wilmingham Lane. Access to the farm buildings is via a lane, some 150 metres long adjoined in the southern part of its western boundary by the garden of a separate residential property and to the east by farmland, not in the applicant's control.

Lee Farmhouse itself is Listed Grade II and there are some older stone farm buildings, in poor condition to the north. To the northeast, are the main farm buildings, comprising hay barns, milking parlour, over-wintering quarters for cattle and other implement storage.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/17741 - Agricultural workers bungalow, located to the west of the access road adjacent the southern boundary of the farm, approved in April 1982, subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. Development not implemented.

LBC/17741A - Listed building consent for conservatory - approved December 1993.

TCP/16512 - Agricultural building for use as cattle house, fodder store and feeding area, approved with landscaping condition, June 1978.

TCP/16512A - Milking parlour, approved without conditions, July 1979.

TCP/16512B - Cattle/livestock building, approved subject to materials and landscaping conditions, May 1997.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for change of use of existing buildings and construction of new buildings to allow for diversification of use from the existing dairy enterprise. Proposal would involve thirty four stables (twenty within existing buildings, fourteen by new construction) used for livery purposes, a sand school, together with rides and jumps, conversion of buildings for storage purposes for touring caravans and boats, with ancillary workshop facilities. Original scheme was for three holiday lodges and covered swimming pool to the south of the farmhouse but revised proposal now seeks consent for one holiday lodge in this location with two holiday lodges and the covered swimming pool relocated to the south of the eastern limit of buildings currently forming the farm enterprise.

A Whole Farm Plan is submitted in support of the application, indicating that the dairying enterprise will cease, whilst the remainder of the farm holding will comprise 92 hectares for arable, 30 hectares for grazing and grass for silage and 7.5 hectares for countryside stewardship scheme together with some 8 hectares of woodland planting. A new access way would be proposed running east and then north off the existing access into the farmyard.

In more detail, the proposals seek to retain buildings immediately north of the farmhouse in order to serve the remaining agricultural activity, whilst the other farm buildings to the east will be reused as follows:

Former milking parlour to be converted to six horse boxes plus tack rooms, with clubroom, office, W.C. and plant room attached. To the east of this building, twenty new stables would be formed, ten by conversion of an existing building, and a further ten by new construction. Tack and store rooms would also be provided, with a central covered area between the buildings. New construction would be in timber with onduline sheeting for the roofs. Again to the east, on relatively level ground, the sand school, measuring 44 metres east west and 25 metres north south is proposed, surrounded by post and rail fencing. To the north of the stables and the sand school are existing hardstanding areas, one concrete one gravel, which would be retained. The building to the south of the milking parlour, which has an overall floor area of about 408 square metres, would be converted for use for storage of boats, caravans etc, the "Atcost" building to the south of that is proposed to be converted for office purposes. This would be retained with vertical timber boarding and concrete blocks for external elevations, with the introduction of glazing, for natural light, in the upper part of the southern elevation. Access would be from the north, where vehicle circulation is proposed to a proposed parking area east of the storage building whilst a new access road, with crushed limestone surface and drainage ditch alongside would be constructed running south and west to link with the main access road to the B3401.

Outline consent is sought for the holiday lodges and the swimming pool, with all matters, including siting and access, reserved for future approval. However, illustrative material is submitted showing a typical unit, constructed in horizontal timber boarding with pitched roof and veranda. Units can be three, four or five bedroomed and the proposed swimming pool would be constructed to a similar specification. Although in outline, an illustrative plan shows one bungalow some 18 metres west of the access road and minimum 5 metres maximum 9 metres from the southern boundary of the site, whilst the other two holiday lodges and the covered swimming pool are located some 35 metres south of the proposed stables and hay store, about 40 metres east of the proposed access road.

There is a single access point to the site from the north side of Wellow Road and as well as the whole farm plan (copy attached for Members' information) applicants have also provided a confidential financial appraisal and a breakdown of traffic generation for the farm as it is now, and anticipated, should the proposals go ahead.

The submission also incorporates a draft of a Countryside Stewardship Scheme, relating to the ecological and countryside value of the landholding.

Applicants have provided additional information, following the suggestion that the single bungalow south of Lee Farm should be relocated to adjoin the other two and the swimming pool. They originally considered that development should be within area previously approved and within the area of existing built development, giving compact layout and impinging as little as possible on green space. Plan revised to try to meet concerns of various objectors although Environment Agency does not object to development within the area south of the farmhouse, having identified that the restriction to the stream is within the objector's garden. New site for two bungalows and swimming pool is parallel to existing farm buildings and the stream. A third building would bring site beyond this and be out of keeping with the development concept. To create a courtyard would not give privacy and peace essential for countryside holiday visitors or enable best financial return to support future farm enterprise. One property between Lee Farmhouse and the houses on the road will keep at low density, will reuse some stone from own buildings and create calm countryside holiday environment in keeping with philosophy and needs identified in tourism strategy and those who have specifically supported the application. Current application offers best solution within existing planning policies which will enable farm to continue in a way supported by Government's policy for rural areas and to survive financially.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) recognises the contribution which farm diversification can make to the rural economy and suggests that whilst it may be preferable for such development to reuse existing farm buildings, new buildings may also be acceptable. It advises:

"Local Planning Authorities should be supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location."

PPG21 (Tourism) also points out that tourism makes a major contribution to the prosperity of many rural areas and often depends of a high quality environment. Planning Authorities should manage the needs of tourism in ways that protect or enhance the countryside. Appropriate development to meet needs of visitors is essential for both local and national economy but must respond sensitively to the local environment, demonstrate high standards of design and be appropriate in scale and location to minimise environmental impact.

Relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S4 - Countryside protected from inappropriate development;

S5 - Proposals on balance will be for overall benefit of the Island enhancing economic, social or environmental position provided adverse impacts and be ameliorated;

S6 - Development expected to be of high standard of design;

G1 - Development Envelopes;

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements;

G6 - Areas Liable to Flooding;

D1 - Standards of Design;

D2 - Standards for Development Within Site;

D3 - Landscaping;

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings;

E8 - Employment in the Countryside;

T1 - Promotion of Tourism;

T3 - Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation;

T9 - Small Scale Rural Tourism Development;

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character;

C15 - Appropriate Agricultural Diversification;

C17 - Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings;

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside;

C24 - Commercial Riding Establishments;

C25 - All Weather Riding Facilities;

TR3 - Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel;

TR6 - Cycling and Walking;

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development;

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines;

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision;

L1 - Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Property Services Manager has examined the confidential financial information, submitted in support, and confirms that changes will produce extra income for farm and are broadly viable, with exception of offices. Hard to say whether remaining farm enterprises will remain viable as too many variables.

Highways Engineer originally recommended refusal, but receipt of revised plans showing improved visibility at junction with main road and passing places within the access road have allowed him now to indicate his acceptance, subject to conditions. Senior Transport Planner would like to see section of disused railway line within overall farm holding turned over to cycle/bridleway use as part of the planned Newport to Yarmouth cycle route and suggests this could be achieved through a Section 106 Agreement.

Environment Agency has considered revised plans and if approved, recommends conditions regarding disposal of foul and surface water, identification of manholes, bunding for fuel storage and petrol interceptor for parking area surface water disposal.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions if approved restricting occupation of lodges to holiday use, agreeing areas for waste straw etc, waste/manure not burned but disposed of in agreed manner and dirty water discharged to dirty water lagoon.

Ecology Officer confirms no important hedgerows or habitats affected, no buildings suitable for bat roosts affected, no effect on red squirrels or woodland habitat or corridors. Tree and scrub clearance should be limited to 1 September to 1 April to avoid impacts on nesting birds. Condition re-catching and translocation in accordance with agreed procedure if slow worms found in derelict vegetable garden.

Countryside Access Manager welcomes offer of part of old railway and footpath S7 to achieve acceptable bridleway link between A3056 and Wellow, without interfering unduly with walkers.

County Archivist confirms that hedge along access road cannot be viewed as important under the historic criteria laid out in the Hedgerow Regulations.

PARISH AND TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

The majority of the application area is within Shalfleet Parish, but that section to the south of the stream between Lee Farmhouse itself and the rear of properties fronting main road, is within Yarmouth Town Council area.

Shalfleet Parish Council support the elements of the proposal within its area. Technical issues would be addressed by Planners. Support should be given to new enterprises which will allow the farm to remain viable.

Yarmouth Town Council does not object to stables, livery and upgraded outbuildings. Express concern at the building of the three bungalows on land south of Thorley Farmhouse, would prefer bungalows to be elsewhere as concerned at water levels and two streams alongside site. Concern also at noise levels.

With regard to revised proposal, Shalfleet confirm their earlier observations still apply, whilst Yarmouth does not object to the planning application but has grave concerns regarding the floodplain in which the bungalow will be built, disturbance of wildlife and ancient hedges for the access. Suggest that all three bungalows be moved to the new location as the problem still remains with flooding and the two brooks that run alongside the building of the bungalow on that site.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from nearby residents objecting to the originally submitted plans, particularly in reference to the holiday lodges located to the south of Lee Farmhouse, raising the following points:

· Area is adjoined by two streams, lies very wet and is liable to flood;

· Global warming is a fact of life and potential for flooding of this land can only increase;

· Sewage filtration plant for nearby dwellings is close by and would be affected by any floods, causing overflow and potential for pollution to nearby SINC and SSSI;

· Significant traffic increase likely in access lane, which runs alongside the boundary of the adjoining residential property;

· Removal of ancient hedgerow required to improve access;

· Increased noise pollution as more vehicles likely to use access road;

· General disturbance to neighbours' residential properties from occupation of holiday lodges at rear, lowering quality of life and amenity;

· Lodges would affect setting of Listed building, Lee Farm;

· Adverse effect on red squirrels, dormice and slow worms;

· Some factual/geographic errors in the application for stewardship schedule, submitted in support of the planning application;

· Nuisance and amenity problems arising from proposal have been understated by the applicant;

· Agree with need to diversify but should not be allowed until environmental disadvantages are removed;

· Structure plan says farm buildings should first be used for farming, then industry before stables. Has industrial use been fully investigated?

All these points have been reiterated by receipt of letters following the readvertisement of the revised scheme.

Isle of Wight Economic Partnership supports proposal, indicating rural economy has been fragile for many years and only through a broadening of economic base by activities such as creation of quality tourism facilities can rural jobs be created and investment to support the countryside can be attracted. Sure Planning Authority will require development will be of highest quality as only good quality and sustainable developments benefit the Island in the long term.

Island Tourist Industry Association fully supports diversification projects from farmland to other use that would improve the local countryside and bring extra visitors by supplying superior self-catering accommodation. This and other applications of this nature fit in with regional spatial strategy that has been set up from the ETC and regional tourist boards.

Southern Tourist Board comment there has been steady growth over last ten years or so in supply and demand for self-catering accommodation in the form of holiday cottages. Attraction is freedom and level of comfort provided in attractive rural and coastal locations. Performance particularly buoyant at higher end of market so quality is a key determinant of success. Public is increasingly discerning and expects standards equivalent or superior to those at home. Research in Autumn 2002 found average annual occupancy for self-catering in southern region for 2001/2 was 50% with average 27 weeks of the year sold. On IW performance tends to be more seasonal, however, many properties benefit from year round business by virtue of high standards linked to other out of season activities.

Proposal to build accessible accommodation linked to indoor swimming pool will be important factor in extending letting period; swimming is an activity many disabled people enjoy for therapeutic qualities. Currently very little in the way of accessible accommodation in the southeast and aware of only one other accessible establishment in the region with a swimming pool. Accessible units may achieve higher than average occupancy due to relative shortage of this type of accommodation.

Also encouraged by offer of countryside access holidays where visitors have opportunity to try their hand at country activities which may extend letting beyond school holidays. Believe that given high standards and good marketing, proposed accommodation should be a success.

Wightlink consider proposals well thought through and striking attractive balance. Result would encapsulate perception of short break or main holiday visitors to IW in terms of what the Island is imagined and hopefully represents. To increase such capacity at high standard should enhance Island's tourism appeal.

Red Funnel Group supports proposal and already markets holidays as well as ferry travel to the Isle of Wight. Have seen over last few years increase in demand for good quality, self-catering accommodation that can be used for short break holidays. Various key events mean IW becoming more desirable location for short break activity holidays virtually all year round; however, on many occasions have been unable to satisfy demand due to lack of quality self-catering accommodation. Proposal fits in with company's long term strategy of developing short break market.

EVALUATION

This proposal highlights the potential conflict between farm diversification and development which will help to sustain the rural economy and policies restricting development within the countryside. The main issues to be considered in its determination are therefore national policies regarding farm diversification and the need to preserve and if possible improve the rural economy, the impact of such proposals on the character of the countryside, the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, the potential for flooding within parts of the site, the impact of new or reconstructed buildings on the character of the countryside, benefits to tourism and the Isle of Wight Economy generally and any other benefits which might arise from the development.

Both PPG7 and UDP Policy C15 encourage appropriate agricultural diversification, as long as it can be shown that the proposed enterprise will be well integrated with the existing operation and is likely to provide a long term source of employment and income to support the business as a whole. In this case, the applicant has submitted a Whole Farm Plan, which indicates that whilst the intention is to cease the dairy operation currently carried out at the site, the farm would be retained as an arable enterprise, supported in part by the economic benefits which the proposed development would engender. The Council's Property Services Manager has examined the figures proposed and whilst there are some concerns over the likely viability/success of the development proposed, it is suggested that the uses proposed are broadly viable and that the extra income produced should enable the continuation of agricultural enterprise at the site. Applicant's agent has indicated the scheme will be phased and the market re office use would be tested at the appropriate time. As an alternative to office use, any use within Class B1 would be acceptable.

Equally importantly, the activities proposed, i.e. the keeping and schooling of horses on a livery basis, together with the potential for "themed" holidays relating both to horse riding and other countryside activities; the provision of office/workshop facilities for small rural employers are all thought generally to be appropriate countryside activities. Information has also been submitted to show that the farming operation, although adapted, can continue with the support of the additional uses proposed and therefore I consider that the proposal meets the general requirements of national policy regarding farm diversification, and more particularly meets the criteria set out in Policy C15 of the UDP and is therefore acceptable in this respect.

The UDP also requires under Policy C1 that development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape and be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area must also be considered. Lee Farm is not within any area designated for its landscape quality but this does not mean that lower standards should be accepted in terms of the visual impact of the development. In this case, the proposals for the refurbishment of existing buildings will, in my opinion, create an improvement to their appearance in the countryside and the new development (i.e. manege, car parking, holiday lodges etc) will be grouped with the existing farm buildings to ensure that the overall open character of the landscape is not adversely affected.

Whilst I can understand the applicants original intention to provide the holiday lodges and swimming pool within the southern part of the site, i.e. nearest to existing residential properties, particularly as this area has previously had consent for an agricultural worker's bungalow, the drawbacks of relationship and increased activity closer to neighbouring residential properties have justified the relocation of two of the units and the swimming pool building to the area to the south of the eastern part of the farm complex. Although in outline, I am satisfied that the type of holiday units and swimming pool building proposed can be designed in such a way as to integrate satisfactorily with the rural character of the area and because of the levels, these units will be seen against the background of the existing and improved farm buildings already on the site.

Overall, therefore, I conclude that the development proposed is appropriate for the countryside, will benefit the rural economy and will be acceptable within the landscape character and context of the surrounding area, providing appropriate conditions are imposed.

The effect of the proposal on amenities of the adjoining residential occupiers, fronting main road, has been touched on and the proposal is still to locate one of the holiday lodges in the area between Lee Farmhouse and those dwellings. The illustrative material submitted with the application indicates a single storey unit which, with the nature of boundary screening at the rear of the existing properties should not lead to undue loss of privacy, particularly bearing in mind that the proposed unit would be some 8-10 metres north of that boundary. Whilst it must be recognised that such a unit would increase general activity in the area from its use by people on holiday, I do not believe that the impacts would be so great as to warrant refusal of the application on that basis.

It has been suggested that the boundary hedge between the garden of the adjoining property and the access road will need to be removed in order to provide the access improvements required by the Highways Engineer; I would suggest that if any hedge removal is necessary, a condition should be imposed on any approval to ensure that adequate screening is retained to the private garden area of that property. Although there may be some increase in the amount of traffic using that road, it is more likely to be domestic vehicles, rather than the larger agricultural and commercial vehicles at present.

The question of development within the area to the south of Lee Farmhouse is one of some concern and may impact on sewage disposal facilities for adjoining properties, should flooding potential be exacerbated. The original scheme for three units and a swimming pool within this area initially attracted a holding objection from the Environment Agency but that has now been withdrawn and the Agency is satisfied that the development of one unit in this area is acceptable, subject to a number of conditions regarding foul and surface water disposal. It must be remembered that this site has previously had consent for an agricultural worker's bungalow and bearing in mind the nature of the surrounding area, I believe that there is no technical reason why an appropriate sewage/surface water disposal system cannot be achieved. The details of method will be the subject of Building Regulations approval and whilst appropriate conditions can be imposed, it should be remembered that the Planning Authority should not duplicate controls imposed by other legislation.

Representations received from bodies such as Southern Tourist Board, SEEDA, The Island Tourist Industry Association and ferry operators would support the contention that the tourist elements of this proposal should provide a "niche" market in respect of both "accessible" and "themed countryside" holidays. I would therefore suggest that the proposal, although in the countryside and outside any defined development envelope, will benefit tourism and therefore the local economy.

The applicant's research has satisfied him that the livery stable element is a viable option and this view is borne out by the Council's Property Services Manager in his assessment of the viability of the overall development. The manege proposed will add to the attractiveness of the livery and will allow users the opportunity to school their horses or provide elementary training for people taking holidays in the area. Conditions will be required in accordance with UDP Policy C23 (Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside) to minimise impact from jumps and other mobile structures in the fields.

The former railway line between Newport and Yarmouth runs east west across the northern part of Lee Farm, at some distance from the buildings the subject of this application. Consultations with Highways have raised the idea of requiring this railway line to be made available as part of the Newport-Yarmouth cycleway and although this is a laudable aim, contained within the Unitary Development Plan, I do not believe it is related closely enough to the proposed development to warrant the imposition of a planning condition requiring that land to be kept available for the cycle track. Because of concern for the safety of horses and riders using the carriageway, the applicant has been approached with a view to concluding a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the future use of the disused railway line that falls within his ownership is made available for use as a bridleway/cycleway for development in partnership with the Council, together with the right for the Council to carry out appropriate construction works. However, whilst the applicant is supportive of the idea of the creation of the bridleway/cycleway, he does not believe that such an agreement is essential to the determination of the current application. The test of such conditions or agreements is whether the proposal would have to be refused if the conditions were not imposed or the agreement was not concluded. In this case, I have to say that a reason for refusal based on the fact that the applicant is not prepared to conclude a Section 106 Agreement regarding commitment to the proposed bridleway/cycleway, could not be supported at appeal. A letter submitted indicating the applicant's willingness to negotiate this issue as appropriate is copied and attached for Members' information.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section, I am satisfied that this proposal represents an acceptable form of development, in accordance with national and local policies regarding farm diversification, which will not have excessive impact on neighbouring occupiers. Any loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers can be addressed through the use of conditions to require appropriate screening where necessary and overall, I conclude that the advantages to farm diversification and the local economy which would result from an approval decision would outweigh those disadvantages regarding new built development in the countryside and effect on neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto 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	The occupation of the chalets 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 six 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.
5	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed scheme indicating the means of foul water and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate where appropriate connections at points on any existing system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the system. None of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use until the systems have been constructed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Inspection manholes shall be provided and clearly identified on foul and surface water drainage systems in accordance with the scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable discharges from individual premises or buildings to be inspected and sampled, in accordance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) and P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No part of the site the subject of this approval and shown edged in red on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be used for the carrying out of any industrial or commercial process other than one falling within Classes B1 or B8 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 re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies E8 (Employment in the Countryside) and G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Stables - no outside storage - F32
11	No manure or bedding shall be burned on site but shall be disposed of in a manner to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area/neighbouring property to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Dirty water shall be discharged to the existing dirty water lagoon and disposal system, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Stables - no fences/means of enclosure, - F34
14	Stables - no jumps, etc - F35
15	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works approved pursuant to condition 16 above have been completed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	Prior to the bringing into use of any part of the development hereby approved, additional screening on the western side of the access road into the site shall be provided in accordance with a scheme agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority. Such screening as may be agreed shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	No external lighting shall be provided at the site, other than in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in general and to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
20	All material excavated from the site as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall either be disposed outside the site outlined in red and blue prior to completion of the development or shall form part of an approved landscaping scheme. Such scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation or any part of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
21	Any tree and scrub clearance required in connection with the implementation of this consent shall be carried out between the 31 August and 1 March only. Reason: In order to avoid impacts upon nesting birds and in accordance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
22	Prior to the commencement of any site clearance within the area lying to the south of Lee Farmhouse, a search for slow worms shall be undertaken in accordance with a procedure agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority and any slow worms which may be found shall be translocated to a suitable location and habitat agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To respect the habitat of a protected species (slow worm) in accordance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
23	Such detailed conditions as the Highways Engineer may recommend.

6.

TCP/19499/G P/01121/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North Registration Date: 03/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mrs B Hobbs Alterations & single/2 storey extension to provide additional sales area on ground floor with 8 self-contained apartments over on 1st & 2nd floors (revised scheme) 5 Lugley Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305HD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application has proved to be particularly contentious and has attracted a number of representations including a petition and relates to a site within the Newport Conservation Area and therefore it is considered Committee determination in this case is appropriate.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a minor application received on 2 June 2003 and has taken seven weeks to process. A decision at this meeting would mean that the application would have been dealt with within the prescribed eight week time limit which expires on 28 July 2003.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site on southern side of Lugley Street close to its junction with Holyrood Street.

Immediately abutting the eastern boundary is in part the building which makes up no. 1 Lugley Street and then extends into further buildings which make up nos. 1 and 2 Post House Cottages which are accessed off Holyrood Street further to the east. Abutting the southern boundary wall is in part a SEB substation and parking area which backs onto the Job Centre building. Parking area is accessed off Holyrood Street.

The application site itself is L-shaped with its western and southern boundaries immediately abutting the parking area to "Boots". The existing building which stands at the back of footpath to Lugley Street is part two storey and part single storey consisting of retail on the ground floor with storage, toilets, office and retail at first floor level with a flat roof over the single storey element attached to the rear. The remaining part of the site is made up of a gravel parking area enclosed on three sides by walls and which abuts the eastern boundary and a wall which separates it from the Boots car park area. This gravel car parking area formerly accommodated a building which was demolished in the mid-nineties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Most recent history relates to an application for one/two/three storey extension to provide additional sales area on the ground floor with ten self-contained apartments over on first and second floors. This application was refused in March 2003 under the delegated powers procedure with the reasons being:

Overdevelopment and excessive density, mass and height likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be overbearing in nature as well as out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

Height and mass of proposed building would be overbearing and overdominant and have an adverse impact on the designated Conservation Area and therefore the proposal failed to enhance or preserve that area.

By not indicating the position, height and mass of adjacent properties applicant had failed to indicate how the existing environment enjoyed by occupiers of adjoining properties were to be protected from adverse impact.

Other planning history as follows:

In January 1996 Conservation Area Consent granted for demolition of two storey property at 3 Lugley Street.

In May 1996 detailed consent granted for replacement building providing additional retail area for no. 5 Lugley Street for storage at first floor and parking area to rear. (This application has been implemented and reflects the existing situation on site).

With regard to the Conservation Area demolition consent a demolition notice was received by the Building Control Department in November 1995. There is photographic evidence that the previous building on the site was two to three storeys in height. The reason for the demolition, again according to the records, was the poor state of repair of the building with some parts of the building being unsafe.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks consent for extensions and conversions which involves total site coverage. In detail proposal involves the infilling of the existing courtyard parking area to the rear of the site along with the existing covered arch off Lugley Street which gives access to that courtyard.

The ground floor element of the proposal provides for additional sales area and stock room within the courtyard area. All sales areas to be rationalised and to include staff room, offices and toilets, all to be located on the ground floor. Finally, alterations indicate creation of an entrance lobby with staircase to first floor and includes for a service corridor with ramps to reflect changes in levels.

At first floor proposal indicates the creation of three single bedroom flats within new first floor extension with a further five one bedroomed flats within the existing Hellerslea building, with those five flats being through two floors. In this regard proposal involves insertion of four dormer windows within the roof slope which faces Lugley Street, with these windows being in addition to the one existing second floor window within that elevation. Other additional windows are in the form of roof lights, some within the south facing slope of the existing two storey Hellerslea building, the remainder being within the new pitched roofs. In this regard the three new single bedroom flats are to be provided with pitched gabled slated roofs. The proposal provides for four recessed balconies with the roof being cut back accordingly to provide both ventilation and light to the main rooms of those three flats.

Those elements of the proposed extensions which are exposed to be finished in facing brick under slated roofs.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000. This document emphasises the following:

To 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 to public transport, jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

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

Conversions of housing, buildings formerly in other uses and the upper-floor space over shops, can provide an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres.

Local Authorities should promote developments which combine a mix of land uses, including housing, either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops. This is important not only to accommodate new households but also to bring new life into our towns and cities.

Relevant local Plan policies are as follows:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

H5 - Infill Development

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

Finally, reference is made to the Housing Needs Survey, one of the main conclusions of which is as follows:

A large proportion of demand is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroomed homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there are no highway implications.

Council's Archaeological Officer recommends appropriate condition should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of a twenty two signature petition. This petition is against the new development but does not give any specific reasons. A breakdown of signatories is as follows. Eight from the general area of Newport, six from immediate local residents in Holyrood Street, four from residents of Lugley Street and one each from residents of Sea Street and Watchbell Lane, and a Totland and a Carisbrooke resident.

Application has been the subject of single objection letters from adjoining property owner in Lugley Street, nearby property owner in Holyrood Street and a Ryde resident. Application has also been subject of four separate letters from one of the neighbouring property occupiers which also includes a copy of a letter which was sent direct to the applicants. The points raised within the above are summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in loss of privacy, loss of outlook and loss of light to neighbouring properties, with particular reference to those which are in close proximity to the east.

Newport town is already subject of excessive development and this proposal will simply exacerbate the general overcrowding that is occurring.

Proposal will have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

Proposal is architecturally inappropriate, out of keeping with the character of the area with particular reference to nearby Listed buildings.

Proposal will intensify traffic generation resulting in increased pollution, disturbance and noise.

Proposal fails to provide any parking facilities and will therefore contribute to the car parking congestion which already takes place in the immediate area.

Failure to provide any car parking spaces will increase pressures on the limited parking that is available in the area resulting in a further deterrent to potential customers to businesses in the area.

Disturbance caused by construction traffic using roads which are already inadequate with particular reference to Holyrood Street and Lugley Street.

Proposal represents an excessive density and should be reduced both in scale and number of flats proposed.

Concerns that the close proximity of the buildings will present a high fire risk with reference being made to the minimal space between properties.

Reference made to the excessive size of flat 6 and its closeness to and therefore effect upon property 1 Lugley Street.

One objector suggests that the open courtyard area should be used more formally as a car park for public use.

Concern that there may be a conflict between the retail and residential uses being proposed.

Some concern is raised regarding the potential for this type of close development affecting the function of damp proof courses etc.

One objector considers that any extensions providing additional accommodation should be restricted to the existing building and should not involve any further extensions to the property.

Concern that the close proximity of foundation works will adversely affect the structural integrity of the adjoining properties and that the ground conditions generally are of poor quality likely to be unable to accept any additional weight.

The proposal represents yet another inappropriate type of development in Newport further impinging on the character of the town.

Concern that the level of occupancy of the development along with its close proximity to neighbouring properties will cause noise disturbance which will contribute to the existing excess of noise which already occurs in Newport, particularly when the clubs and pubs close.

There is already a problem in the area in respect of collection of refuse and this proposal will simply exacerbate that problem.

Concern that the site may contain interesting archaeological material.

Claim that the new development will not improve the economy of the environment.

One objector questions the accuracy of the plans, making particular reference to heights of adjoining properties 23 and 24 Holyrood Street and the failure of the applicant to indicate the rooftops in relation to 25 and 27 Holyrood Street.

Concern that this proposal will be a forerunner to further extensions.

Approval to this development will result in a feeling of encirclement resulting in a loss of open space which is in relatively short supply in Newport.

One objector considers that these types of development should be restricted to the edge and outskirts of Newport only.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Firstly, Members will note that this application has been the subject of a considerable level of representations with one neighbour raising an extensive number of issues, all of which are duly noted. Members will also note the recent refusal of consent in respect of a more extensive scheme and this evaluation will assess whether or not the applicant has addressed the three reasons given for refusal. Therefore, the material considerations are as follows:

Appropriateness of density in relation to mass and height.

Appropriateness and accuracy of the level of information provided linked to the likely impact of the proposal on adjoining properties.

Quality of the environment that could be provided to any future occupiers.

The impact of the proposal in relation to the Newport Conservation Area.

Firstly, the proposal represents a reduction in density which has more importantly reduced the height and mass of the scheme resulting in development more in keeping with the area generally.

A second useful comparison would be between the current proposal and the height and mass of the former building which stood on this site up until the mid-90's. There is photographic evidence of this building just prior to its demolition which suggests a structure of at least two storeys to three storeys stood on this site being the former building of no. 3 Lugley Street. I would suggest that in terms of the curtilage of no. 3 the current proposal presents a lesser overall mass and height when compared with that previous building. Given this assessment I am of the view that this new proposal has fully addressed any question of development of an overbearing nature and loss of outlook from neighbouring properties.

The resultant reduction in mass and scale has, as Members will note, reduced the number of units from ten to eight with the type of units, i.e. one bedroomed flats, fully according with the greatest demand identified in the Council's Housing Needs Survey. In this regard I make reference to the contents of PPG3 with particular reference to conversions of buildings and use of upper floor space providing an important source of additional housing, particularly in town centres. The introduction of eight units of accommodation on this site accords with this approach with PPG3 advising that Local Planning Authorities should adopt positive policies to:

"Promote such conversions by taking a more flexible approach to Development Plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking."

Again this scheme to mix retail with residential fully accords with the advice in PPG3 with particular reference to the promotion of mixed use development.

In terms of the general employment and housing strategy proposal indicates a commitment to both retaining and expanding a retail outlet in the town centre which obviously should be encouraged in relation to the vitality and viability of the town centre and also provides additional employment opportunities.

With regard to potential impact on neighbouring properties particularly in this case to those properties to the east, a very careful analysis of this aspect of the proposal has been carried out. I am satisfied that the information provided in terms of existing ridge and eaves heights in relation to the proposed development provides an accurate reflection of the existing situation. The result of this analysis is that the abutting residential properties are three in number being nos 1 and 2 Post House Cottages and no 1 Lugley Street. Post House Cottages are mainly two storey with single storey elements whilst Lugley Street is mainly two storey. None of these three properties have windows which face towards the application site.

Further to the east are other established properties which directly abut the back of footpath to Holyrood Street with the rear of these properties being approximately 8.5 metres off the eastern boundary of the application site. These properties do have west facing windows and have accommodation on three floors. One of these properties has been visited by the Case Officer which confirms that a first floor kitchen window and second floor bedroom and box room windows face towards the application site.

In analysing the impact on the outlook from these windows I am satisfied that the proposal will have a very limited impact on outlook from the second floor bedroom window with that outlook being limited to a very small section of the roof slope. Such a limited encroachment on outlook could not, in my opinion, sustain a reason for refusal.

Obviously this type of development would come under the auspices of the Party Wall Act which is civil legislation involving exclusively the two parties, which in this case would be the developer and immediately abutting property owners, with the onus being on the developer to give those abutting owners notice of their intentions with those owners either agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal. Where there is disagreement the Act provides for the resolution of any disputes. It is important to appreciate that this is separate from planning legislation.

Similarly with regard to the construction of the development which, because of the restrictive nature of the site, is going to present logistic problems in terms of management. However, again this is not a sustainable reason to refuse an application. I would suggest that if Members are mindful to approve the application a separate letter be sent to the applicants strongly advising careful management of the construction works on site and to control movement of construction vehicles to cause minimum disturbance to local residents. Members will appreciate however, that any construction works, particularly within a brownfield site with the constraints that this site has the potential to cause some temporary disturbance and nuisance to existing residents.

With regard to concerns relating to ground conditions and foundations, I have consulted with my Building Control colleagues who confirm that the nearby "Hursts" development did not throw up any major ground condition problems with that development using traditional trench foundations as opposed to piling. In any event, these issues would be fully covered within the auspices of the Building Regulations. As such the resultant building would be constructed to a standard much higher than adjoining properties in terms of Fire Regulations, foundations, thermal and sound insulation.

With regard to the internal layout and the type of accommodation it will be noted from the description that the development does not provide windows directly on the party boundary walls but has used recessed balcony areas to overcome the issue of providing natural light. Also, the use of roof lights to bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms within the sloping roofs provides a second source of natural light. Such an arrangement of windows is not unusual within intensive in-town developments such as this and is deemed to be satisfactory. I certainly do not consider that any of the roof lights would result in the capability of overlooking occurring on neighbouring properties. In terms of the accommodation itself, all eight flats are aimed at two person occupancy and whether for rent or open market purchase aimed at lower income groups.

With regard to the issue of impact on the Conservation Area, with particular reference to the duty of preservation and enhancement of such areas, I am now satisfied that this proposal in terms of height, mass and architectural design, along with use of appropriate materials will satisfy those two tests. The existing buildings and walls within this area contribute little or nothing to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area with this current proposal obviously rectifying this situation. In any event, this proposal will have very minimal impact on the Conservation Area when viewed from Lugley Street or any other public highway.

In terms of parking, the site is within Zone 1 in respect of parking policies and therefore this proposal which provides no parking is in accordance with Policy TR16 Appendix G. Because the proposal, however, is under ten units and the additional retail floor area is under the required threshold this proposal will not attract a contribution to the Transport Infrastructure Fund. Whilst accepting that zero parking schemes such as this may impact on the general pattern of parking within the town centre recent appeal decisions both on the Isle of Wight and elsewhere suggests that Inspectors fully support the principle of reducing, and in this case omitting, parking provision altogether on those sites within town centres. A recent appeal decision in respect of Clifford Street which was in a Zone 2 area confirms this with at that time the Inspector placing considerable weight on Policy TR16 Appendix G when coming to the decision to allow the appeal on a site with zero parking.

Whilst I appreciate the general strength of feeling in respect of this proposal evidenced by the extent of representations which raise a considerable number of issues, I am of the view that none of these concerns bear sufficient weight to enable a refusal decision to be sustained on appeal. I consider the scheme in its reduced form has fully addressed the previous reasons for refusal and fully complies with the relevant UDP policies and national policies, particularly those contained in PPG3. I therefore recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicants 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 on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above I am satisfied that this proposal represents an acceptable form of development which will not have an excessive impact on neighbouring properties, has fully addressed the need to both preserve and enhance the Newport Conservation Area, is of an appropriate height and mass and architectural appearance and fully accords with the Council's parking policies in terms of the provision of zero parking. Indeed the provision of eight one bedroomed flats accords entirely with the Housing Needs Survey which has identified this type of accommodation as representing the greatest demand. I am generally of the view that this proposal is likely to contribute to the vitality and viability of Newport town centre and as such should be encouraged and therefore I recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the single/two storey extensions 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 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such schedule shall provide for natural slate to the roof. 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) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	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: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features of archaeological significance. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeological Officer County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse 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 has been completed in full in accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The new entrance doors and service entrance doors along with the four number proposed dormer windows at second floor level shall be constructed of timber and shall be stained in a colour to match the existing windows and thereafter maintained as such to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a specification for the treatment of the side cheeks to the dormer windows with all dormer windows being finished with a slated roof to match the existing. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing buildings in the interests of the amenities and character of the Conservation Area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to commencement of work a scheme shall be submitted indicating provision within the site for eight bicycles to be parked and no flats shall be occupied until such provision has been provided in accordance with the agreed scheme but shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicant advising that construction work needs to be carefully managed to cause minimum disturbance to local residents and that all construction traffic be carefully controlled and programmed to cause minimum disturbance to other road users.

7.	TCP/21969/B P/01067/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West Registration Date: 23/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr W J Nigh Retention of holiday chalet known as 'Seagull Cottage' West End Cottage, Steephill Cove, Ventnor, PO381UG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

An employee of Development Control has an interest in this application.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken nine weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit because of the need for determination by the Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is located at the western end of Steephill Cove and comprises of the parent dwelling (West End Cottage) adjacent the rear boundary, a well established cafe/tea room at the front and the chalet subject of this application to the west.

Steephill Cove is a tranquil bay located on the western outskirts of Ventnor. It is very much targeted at the tourist offering self-contained holiday accommodation, a restaurant and cafe/tea room.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21969 - Consent granted in February 1997 for a two storey extension to form storage area.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to retain a timber holiday chalet. This replaces an earlier building used as overspill accommodation/holiday let. The building subject of this application offers an open plan living area, kitchenette and bed space together with a separate bathroom. There is timber decking to the front overlooking Steephill Cove.

The applicant has confirmed that he has no intention whatsoever of creating a separate living unit, but to continue using the site for holiday letting. He states that any other use would be completely impractical for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that access can only be obtained via West End Cottage or the cafe.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown as being outside of the development envelope for Ventnor as identified in the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy G5 refers to development outside development settlements and specifies certain categories of development which may be acceptable. One such category is "appropriate rural tourism development". Tourism policies T3 (Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation) and T9 (Small Scale Rural Tourism Development) are also relevant. Both policies accept the principle of tourist accommodation.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

AONB Planning and Information Officer - no comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from local residents supporting this application on the following grounds:

· Most attractive addition to the Cove.

· Has been constructed well, with natural products and is pleasing to the eye.

· Improvement on previous building.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Members will be aware that applications should be determined in light of adopted policies contained in the UDP, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy G5 accepts the principle of "appropriate rural tourism developments" outside of development envelope boundaries. Tourism policies T3 and T9 outline more detailed criteria that should be taken into consideration when determining applications for tourist accommodation. This development fully accords with those criteria.

The building is well designed, constructed of traditional materials and, above all, an improvement on the previous building that occupied this site. This style of building is well suited to the environs of Steephill Cove. It is therefore my opinion that this building is not detrimental to the character of the area, which forms part of the AONB.

Providing conditions are imposed in respect of holiday occupancy only and tying building to West End Cottage, then it is considered that no demonstrable harm would occur.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that there is no sustainable planning objection to the retention and continued use of the chalet as holiday accommodation. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The occupation of the chalet shall be limited to holiday use only and shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six 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.

2

The chalet shall only be used as holiday accommodation ancillary to the parent dwelling, West End Cottage. Reason: The chalet is not in a satisfactory position in relation to the main dwelling to be occupied independently from West End Cottage and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8.

TCP/24977/A P/00980/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns East Registration Date: 15/05/2003 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society Outline for 36 bed nursing home, (revised scheme), (readvertised application) land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is a major submission where there are a number of significant planning issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This major submission has taken nine and a half weeks to process.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a roughly rectangular plot of agricultural land situated in gap between residential development to west and east, namely Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close. Site totals some 1.6 hectares in area and has road frontage of approximately 130 metres with benefit of embankment and mature hedgerow.

RELEVANT HISTORY

During Unitary Development Plan adoption this site was subject to objection which was considered by Inspector. Objection to plan was made on grounds that development envelope should be amended to incorporate this site and existing development at Thornton Manor Drive. In recommending that no modification be made in respect of this objection the Inspector stated:

“This site is put forward on the basis that, although currently used for agriculture, it is not suitable for that purpose – adjoining urban uses limit agriculture use and the tenant farmer can be relocated elsewhere. However, both areas of the objection site are best and most versatile agricultural land which is Government policy to protect from uses which are not reversible. With that in mind, and the conclusion I have reached in Section 1.6 above that the Plan has made adequate provision for housing, I am satisfied that its exclusion from the development envelope is correct.”

Members will recall that outline application for two storey building comprising twelve elderly person units, twenty four bed nursing home and associated facilities to include training/day support centre, vehicular access and parking and landscaping was considered at the meeting held on 10 December 2002.

At this meeting Members agreed with the recommendation to refuse consent on grounds that proposed residential development of site was contrary to UDP policy, loss of high quality agricultural land, lack of adequate sequential analysis, adverse impact on visual amenity and character of area and likely increase in generation of journeys made by private car.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Original Scheme

Originally submitted application was identical to previous one with additional work being carried out on sequential testing of alternative sites, attachment of additional letters of support with specific comments made on reasons for refusal of earlier submission.

As with previous scheme this is outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval seeking consent in principle with originally submitted application seeking development comprising an integrated care facility. Illustrative plans indicate two storey block totalling some 1,500 square metres centrally positioned within site served with parking area to west via new enlarged vehicular access.

Application supported by Agent's statement, business plan, additional points for consideration and comments on specific reasons for refusal. These documents together with statement in support of application are attached as an Appendix to this report.

Briefly the Agent advises that the proposal is not for residential scheme per se it is primarily a nursing home facility with additional beds for frail and very frail elderly.

It is an integrated care scheme. The applicant is a registered social landlord and particular attention is drawn to policy supporting this proposal in exception policies and those relating to nursing homes and health care facilities. Demographic trends show that demands will increase for this facility and this allied with loss of care homes on the Island over several years has increased demand.

Support for integrated approach is referred to in the Council's Social Services and Housing Strategy, Housing Needs Survey and NHS Building Capacity in Care document. Furthermore granting permission for specialist use will not create precedent for future general house building on this land with applicant willing to enter into 106 obligation to ensure site is not developed for general housing. Proposal is supported by local doctors, Primary Care Trust, NHS Trust and Social Services Directorate.

Application is accompanied by 49 letters of support including health professionals.

Amended Scheme

Subsequently application has been amended to seek consent purely for thirty six bed unit to cater for nursing and frail elderly only with residential units removed from scheme. Application is accompanied by business plan which again is attached as an Appendix to this report. Thus application as revised seeks outline consent for thirty six bed nursing home and application has been readvertised accordingly and adjoining owner-occupiers and previous correspondents advised accordingly.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national planning policy guidance is as follows:

PPG1 - General Policy and Principles.

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

PPG13 - Transport.

Relevant policies of 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/Shanklin.

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - Proposals for development which, on balance, will be for the overall benefit of 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 of the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to encourage the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network.

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.

TR3 - Minimise Need to Travel.

TR4 - Transport Statement Required for Major Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

U1 - The Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Education 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.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Comments of Highway Engineer not received at time of preparing report.

Council's Ecology Officer was consulted on previous application. Hedgerow which bounds highway frontage was not considered to qualify as important under wildlife and landscape criteria, however the hedge does have wildlife value and provides suitable nesting and feeding areas for birds. If it has to be removed this should take place between August to February inclusive to avoid disturbing nesting birds.

County Archaeologist advises that proposal concerns site of archaeological interest as recorded on County Sites and Monuments Record. A pre-historic finds scatter of significant quantity is recorded and is recommended the Developer be required to mitigate the effects of proposed development by commissioning specialist archaeological contractors to undertake a watching brief. Accordingly appropriate condition is recommended should consent be granted.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

In respect of original submission the following comments have been received:

Letters of support have been received from a single general practitioner and two doctors practices confirming increasing demand for such facility and referring to shortage of both residential and nursing home beds on the Island and request reconsideration of application.

Letters of support received from Methodist Church, Church of England Archdeaconry, Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS.

Three further letters of support have been received from individual residents raising no objection provided appropriate landscaping is carried out and the remainder of land is not then made available for housing.

Letter received from Strategic Director - Social Services and Housing advises that 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 standards 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 Council's key objectives which is to protect the Island's physical environment.

Fourteen letters of objection have been received from local residents. Main points of objection are summarised as follows:

Reference is made to previous decision on this site and many writers refer to previous objections raised.

Land was specifically excluded from Unitary Development Plan by Inspector following public enquiry.

Setting a precedent.

Proximity of site to industrial land user which may result in conflict.

Inappropriate development of countryside.

Loss of best quality agricultural land.

Adverse impact on wildlife.

Implications for increased traffic movements, particularly with regards to nearby school and related pedestrian movement particularly by children.

Other suitable sites are available.

Inappropriate visual impact.

Increase in noise and general disturbance.

Loss of hedgerow.

Adverse impact on living conditions.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England object to the application on the following grounds:-

Contrary to significant number of Unitary Development Plan policies.

UDP public enquiry where an Inspector excluded land from development.

Proximity of nearby factory.

Loss of hedgerow and implications in respect of archaeological interest.

Impact on highway safety.

Alternative sites being available.

With regards the revised submission seeking consent for a thirty six bed nursing home the following comments have been received:-

Four letters were received supporting the application on the grounds of providing much needed facility and fact that development would allow maintenance of open character of area and in land development the proposal would have merit in its own right rather than allowing site to go for general residential development.

Thirty two individual letters have been received objecting to proposal and whilst many writers repeat previous objections raised, objections are summarised as follows:-

Loss of agricultural land

Loss of hedgerow

Implications of increased traffic movement

Increased noise and light pollution

Inappropriate use of greenfield site which is contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy

Affect on highway safety

Development is not sustainable

Proximity of factory premises

No change from previous submission

Potential conflict with adjoining agricultural activity

Setting a precedent

Not appropriate infill development

Reference to history of site and previous refusal

Related drainage problems

Visual intrusion into countryside

Other sites available

Islandwatch object to proposal on grounds of being contrary to UDP policy and also the fact that proposal would not minimise car travel.

Council for Protection of Rural England repeat previous objections raised and state that no real reassessment has been carried out in respect of alternative sites.

Countrywatch Residents Association formally object to application on grounds of conflict with UDP, loss of best agricultural land and greenfield site status. Other objections relate to proximity of factory premises, lack of bus service in Marlborough Road.

Pondwell Residents Association object on grounds of site being greenfield, not within Unitary Development Plan, representing gap between Ryde and Seaview and setting a precedent. Further objections refer to development unlikely to generate much quality employment, doubtful benefit to Islanders and extra traffic generation.

National Care Standards Commission make no comment in respect of location of proposed building except that it would appear a suitable location for its purpose. The Commission is aware that such provision as proposed would be valuable addition to provision for older people requiring care on Isle of Wight.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

As with previous submission consideration must be given to the following issues.

Policy Section 54A of Act requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with adopted policy unless there are material considerations which would indicate otherwise.

With regards to strategic policies of UDP S1 states that new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas whilst S2 states that developments will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield) sites rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites. Furthermore policy S4 advises that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development. Notwithstanding revision has been made to resubmission it is considered that development of this site remains contrary to these specific strategic policies.

Turning to more detailed policies, whilst previous scheme proposed integrated care facility which was considered to be primarily a residential use and tested against relevant policies, current submission seeks consent for thirty six bedroom nursing home and therefore does not constitute residential development per se. Therefore it is inappropriate to test proposal against relevant housing (H) policies and proposal should be tested against general (G) policies and specific policies relating to Community Services (U).

Looking in detail at locational policies, G1 advises that development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes and land outside these boundaries is considered to be countryside where developments other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals will be resisted. Exceptions that may be allowed outside defined settlements are outlined in policy G5 on the assumption that development requires a rural location. However no specific reference is made to proposed land use and therefore proposed development is considered to be contrary to both G1 and G5, particularly as G5 states that any exceptional development that may be allowed will not be acceptable where it would cause loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, reduce the quality of the environment and landscape and contribute to the merging of settlements or villages with each other.

Turning to policies relating to utility and community services, policy U1 states that development proposals for social, community facilities will be acceptable in principle provided they are within or adjoining development envelope boundaries of the communities they serve.

Accompanying text to this policy advises that health, community, social, religious and educational facilities are not specifically included in the Government's list of relevant topics to be included in development plans, nevertheless it is expected that these developments generally take place within the communities they serve. "In particular circumstances, where no land is available within the development envelope of the relevant community, a location adjoining the settlement may be appropriate." (Para 16.3) With regards the question of whether other land is available within the development envelope, whilst numerous sites have been subject to some limited testing in respect of suitability for applicants purposes, I remain of the opinion that some sites appear to be acceptable in land use terms, whilst other potential sites have not been analysed and indeed survey has only focused on this sector of the Island. On the evidence available I am not satisfied sufficiently robust case has been made to meet claim that no alternative sites are available and therefore I consider the development to be contrary to policy U1 which only applies if other land is not available.

Whilst policy U3 advises that the Council will approve development which provides sites or buildings for education, community, social, health, welfare and social facilities where these are located to meet the needs of and provide adequate access to the community they are to serve, where there is a choice the Council will favour the provision of shared or dual use facilities. Attaching text advises that this can be achieved by the careful choice of location and by grouping facilities together. Such grouping or shared facilities have the benefit of reducing separate journeys in providing economies of scale. This policy seeks principally to support the principle of grouping of facilities and thus provision of nursing home in itself does not meet the provisions of this policy.

With regard to policy U9 this supports the development of new/extensions to elderly persons accommodation, nursing homes and mental care homes provided certain detailed criteria are met. This policy principally relates to site/design issues and is not a locational based policy. In any event policies requires development to be assimilated into locality and requires it to be located within easy walking distances of the amenities of the settlement with easy access to public transport. It is considered that a proposal of this size and in this location fails to meet that specific criteria.

Sequential testing is not considered appropriate in this instance in respect of this residential institutional use as the Development Plan is up to date and supported by an Urban Capacity Study which has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

LAND QUALITY

Application site is currently agricultural land which has been identified by MAFF as being Grade 2 (very good) and advice contained within PPG7 (as revised) advises that development of greenfield land, including the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development on previously developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas. Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable Local Planning Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. This approach is backed up by UDP Policy C14 which advises that loss of such land will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is an essential need for development affecting agricultural land which cannot be met elsewhere. In such a case the best and most versatile land should not be used if suitable lower quality land is available.

Furthermore, Inspector, in dealing with objection at UDP process, noted land quality classification and, on this basis, given that sufficient land had been allocated for residential development, was satisfied that site should not be included within development envelope boundary.

Agricultural report prepared by applicants confirms that land is grade 2 quality, however Consultant advises that area of land in question and its location make it such that full potential of this piece of ground is unlikely to be achieved in agricultural or horticultural terms. Nevertheless soil samples indicate free draining soil to depth and repeats view that soil is classed as grade 2 under MAFF agricultural land classification system.

Notwithstanding the revision to application any development of this site would be contrary to policy C14.

VISUAL IMPACT AND EFFECT OF CHARACTER OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA INCLUDING AMENITIES OF NEARBY RESIDENTS

Whilst current proposal is again outline submission with no details available in respect of design siting etc, nevertheless it is considered appropriate that general comments made in respect of previous submission are relevant to this application and are therefore repeated for Members' consideration.

Whilst site is located between existing residential development to east and west, site clearly provides important visual gap between established settlement of Ryde and more sporadic development to east which has resulted from incremental development prior to previous Local Plan adoption.

Whilst it is appreciated that footprint of building is relatively small in comparison to area of application site, it should be appreciated that illustrative plans indicate area of land between proposed building and residential development in Grasmere Avenue will be used as parking area and these works, together with provision of highway visibility splays resulting in loss of length of hedgerow together with potential provision of new bus layby, would present more urban appearance and the existing rural character of site which provides important visual marker in identifying edge of town boundary would be lost. As far as impact on occupiers of nearby dwelling houses is concerned there is clearly, as referred to in representations received, perception that there will be an increase in amount of traffic in locality as a result of development as proposed.

It is reasonable to assume that there will be an increase in traffic movement above levels presently experienced but against this must be set view of Highway Engineer that with improvements and appropriate conditions road network is technically adequate to cater for additional traffic anticipated. Given site’s location and characteristics and given technical acceptability of proposal it is not felt that reason for refusal on basis of impact on highway safety or residential amenity could be easily substantiated.

SUSTAINABILITY

Notwithstanding revised submission development of this site raises similar issues in terms of sustainability given site's location outside recognised boundaries. Again comments made in respect of previous submission are relevant and repeated for Members' consideration.

PPG13 guidance seeks to ensure that new development should be located so as to minimise need to travel and to reduce reliance on private car. UDP policies follow this presumption as can be evidenced by policies S1 and S3 which indicate that new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas and that new developments of large scale will be expected to locate in or adjacent the defined development envelopes of main towns whilst S11 seeks to reduce impact and reliance on private car. Similarly Policy TR3 which supports proposals which minimise need to travel and advise that Council will seek to locate new developments which create significant travel demand within existing defined settlements which are easily accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot.

It must however, be accepted that not every resident or visitor will be able or willing to take advantage of limited public transport service nor indeed staff, a proportion of which will be employed on shift systems and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the number of private car journeys that are likely to be generated will be significant, particularly given type of use proposed.

As proposal is new development which could clearly create significant travel demand under Policy TR3 it should be located within existing defined settlements and be easily accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot. Location on edge of town, given relative position to town centre and topography of land in locality is likely to result in access by bicycle or on foot being unlikely realistic option.

Members should also note that Policy TR4 requires major development which, by their nature will attract a significant number of persons, to include a supporting statement which shows how the proposal has addressed the need to reduce travel to and from the development by car. The Council will require to be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken to provide for public transport, bicycle and foot travel before approving any such applications.

In view of the above comments I consider that proposal does not comply either with Policy TR3 or TR4 as proposal is likely to generate a significant number of additional car journeys and application is not accompanied by a detailed statement of intent and practices which include measures that seek to reduce the reliance on private car usage.

EFFECT ON ECOLOGY AND HABITAT

Council’s Ecology Officer has inspected site and confirmed that hedgerow is not “important” as defined within Hedgerow Regulations and therefore there is no fundamental objection to loss of feature, although visual impact of such works have been referred to in earlier section of this report. Furthermore, application site does not appear to offer suitable habitat for protected species. In view of these comments there is no sustainable reason to refuse development on grounds of effect on protected or endangered species or their habitat.

Representations received in respect of previous submission from Southern Water advised that a water supply could be provided for the development as and when required however it was recommended that applicant carry out a sewer capacity check to determine an appropriate connection point for the development. Furthermore no surface water should be discharged into the public foul sewer as this would cause flooding to downstream properties. Additionally no new building or tree planting should be located over or within a minimum of five metres of the public sewer rising main.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Proposal seeking construction of nursing home outside development envelope is contrary to both locational policies of UDP (G1 and G5) and specific policies namely U1 and U3 which exceptionally allow for such developments in or adjacent development envelopes where no other land is available within development envelope. Whilst there is undoubted need for such a facility in land use terms such facility should be located within the built up settlements in appropriate locations and it is the Local Planning Authority's contention that alternative suitable sites are available for such shared facilities.

Further planning objection to developments of this site is loss of best agricultural land on which there appears to be no dispute given its grade 2 classification and in view of other major policy objections it is not considered that sufficient case has been made out which would support loss of this rare resource.

Finally, the nursing home would be likely to create significant travel demand which will be met largely by increased car usage contrary to principles of sustainable development set out in PPG13 and relevant UDP policies.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Site lies in countryside outside the defined development envelope boundary for Ryde as defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and the siting of a nursing home in this location is considered by Local Planning Authority to be contrary to policies S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), S2 (Brownfield Sites), S4 (Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development), G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2	The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there are no alternative suitable sites that could accommodate the proposed land use. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies U1 (Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Education Services) and U3 (Appropriate Location of Community Facilities and Promotion of Sharing and Dual Use) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3	The development of the site would result in a loss of high quality agricultural land contrary to both policy C14 (Safeguarding Best Agricultural Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance note 7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development)
4	The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the visual amenity and character of the area contrary to policies S4 (Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes), G4 (General Locational Criteria), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Quality) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development proposed would, in the opinion of Local Planning Authority, be likely to lead to a significant increase in journeys to and from the site by private car contrary to the provisions of PPG13 (Transport) and policies S11 (Reliance on the Private Car), TR3 (Minimise Need to Travel) and TR4 (Transport Statement Requirement) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

9.	TCP/24989/B P/01246/03 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 24/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571 Applicant: Mr A Robinson Retention of front boundary wall 26 Horestone Rise, Seaview, Isle Of Wight, PO345DB

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The report has been requested by the local Member Councillor Mr Barry as he is not happy with Officer's recommendation.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a minor application. Since the registration of the application the processing has taken six weeks to date. A determination at this moment in time would mean that the application has been dealt with within the prescribed time limit.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is 26 Horestone Rise, accessed from Gully Road. The site itself is situated at the southeastern end of the estate, that is open plan consisting of detached properties. When planning permission was originally granted for the residential development, a condition was imposed to control the future erection of screen walls, fences and other buildings forward of the main building lines of the dwellings. The open plan condition effectively withdraws normal permitted development and thus enables the Local Planning Authority control over boundary treatment and a certain amount of uniformity in order to protect the visual amenities of the area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Application TCP/24989/A for the retention of the front boundary wall was registered on 11 February 2003 and was subsequently refused under the delegated procedure on 25 April 2003 on the grounds of being contrary to the open plan concept and detrimental to the open character and appearance of the area resulting in the creation of an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist similar proposals.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a retrospective application for the retention of a front boundary wall located on the eastern boundary of the site, the same as the previous application; comprising of a mixture of natural stone piers infilled with a low brick work wall. The wall is some 9.9 metres in its projection in front of the dwelling and is 650mm at its highest point.

There is existing established natural growth within the front gardens and on the boundaries of the properties fronting onto Horestone Rise. This may interrupt the pleasant vista, but the natural growth does contribute to the softening of the appearance of the area. To a certain extent the existing natural growth does screen the existing wall.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policy is D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan that relating to standards of design, and states that development will be permitted provided that it maintains or enhances the quality and character of the built environment and respects the visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the locality whilst retaining, maintaining and enhancing and/or creating open spaces.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None to report.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None to report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None to report.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The determining factors to be considered are policy and whether the wall projecting beyond the forward most part of the dwelling is resulting in a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and the potential for a precedent to be set. Whilst it is appreciated that the wall is at the top end of a cul-de-sac and there is natural growth close by it is still considered to be an incongruous feature within the street scene. The impact is unacceptable and likely to set a precedent, this is of particular importance given that approval of the wall would make it more difficult to resist further developments of a similar nature. The cumulative effect of such an ad hoc approach with differing boundary treatments could cause serious harm to the visual amenities of the area.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations has been given to what has been outlined in this report, I am therefore of the opinion that the retention of the wall forward of the dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and is likely to set a precedent for development of a similar nature. The development is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly with a second recommendation in respect of authorising appropriate enforcement proceedings to ensure the removal of the wall.

1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The retention of the boundary wall would create a visually prominent feature which would be contrary to the open plan concept of the layout of the estate and it would detract from the open character and appearance of the area, resulting in a detrimental impact. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist similar proposals, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to adversely affect the character of the area and thereby be contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - Enforcement Action to be taken to ensure the wall is removed and all materials removed from the site with a three month period for compliance.

10.

TCP/25200/A P/00770/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge North Registration Date: 24/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Miss Gayle Tolfrey Use of part of dwelling to provide childcare facilities Valletta, Heathfield Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355UW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Ward Member Councillor Mrs Clough. The request was made following a request by Officers to deal with the application under the Part 1B procedure. Mrs Clough has confirmed the following reason for request for Committee decision:

1) In this case social and economic factors need to be considered. The proposed provision could supply a local need and assist people in returning to work.

2) The applicants are experienced primary school teachers and the project has OFSTED approval.

3) Only two objections have been raised and the Parish Council approves.

4) Highways - major concern, but siblings are likely to be involved pre and post school, therefore not much increase in traffic beyond that associated with the six child minding places for which planning application is not required. Clients are likely to attend Bembridge Primary School - within walking distance. OFSTED approval is given for one year initially, during which both amenity and traffic could be monitored.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is an "other" application. The processing of this application has taken 11.5 weeks, this being the earliest Committee date following receipt of outstanding consultations and local Member request.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The dwelling is a semi-detached property which is accessed off of an unmade road in a quiet residential area. There is limited parking within the site, no restriction on parking immediately outside on the unmade road which has limited width. The property has a large back garden with a mix of boundary treatments with the property immediately to the rear of the application site in close proximity to the rear boundary. The property has the benefit of a single storey rear extension and part double glazing.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25200 - Single storey rear extension to enlarge accommodation, Valletta, Heathfield Road, Bembridge, conditional approval December 2002.

TCP/25247/A - Continued use as a child minding business, 28 Moor Green Road, Cowes, conditional approval June 2003.

TCP/3014D - Use of part of dwelling for child minding business, 34 Alexandra Road, Cowes, conditional approval May 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The proposal seeks consent for use of part of a dwelling to provide child care facilities. It is intended to use all of the downstairs accommodation for the purpose of child care with the exception of the hall. Applicant has confirmed she will be entering into this venture with another registered child minder and is applying for permission to care for a maximum of twelve children at certain times, for example, before and after school hours and during school holidays. Further advises that at this time cannot be more specific regarding drop-off/collection times of children, other than to advise that hours of business will be 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday. During these working hours there will be no more than two vehicles parked on the property's private driveway.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is within the development envelope for Bembridge. Policies G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses, D1 - Standards of Design, U8 - The Use of Private Dwellings for Playgroup/Pre-School Provision, TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development and PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms are considered relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends refusal on following grounds:

Heathfield Road is unmade/of inadequate construction and not suitable to carry the additional vehicles that this proposal will generate.

Environmental Health recommend conditions be applied to any approval limiting maximum number of children to twelve and temporary consent for twelve months to assess impact on amenities of area.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection concerned with traffic problems, obstruction/deterioration of private road, no footways, road safety, insufficient parking. Detrimental to neighbour/area in general, business in residential area, precedence, disturbance, noise, proximity to neighbouring property.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Bembridge in a quiet residential area accessed off an unmade road. Main planning considerations relate to impact on amenities of the locality in general and surrounding residential occupiers in particular, highway considerations, encouraging small businesses, whether the site is capable of accommodating proposal.

In evaluating Local Member's concerns, comments regarding social and economic factors and local need has to be balanced against adverse impact on immediate locality. It is also relevant that OFSTED are the controlling authority in respect of the use and welfare arrangements for the children. Comments in relation to highway matters are noted; however, it would not be within the control of the Local Planning Authority whether the children were siblings, whether they attend local primary school or are within walking distance. It is therefore difficult to monitor adverse impact on highway and amenities.

PPG4 advises that in determining whether planning permission is required for a change of use, it is necessary to assess whether the character of the house's use as a single dwelling has changed; once a business or non-residential use of a property ceases to be ancillary to its use as a single dwelling, for example, where the business use generates visitors, traffic, noise or fumes over and above what might be expected if the property were in use as a single dwelling, a material change of use is likely to have taken place. Local Planning Authorities should take steps to ensure such developments are effectively controlled, and should be prepared to refuse planning permission where appropriate.

With regard to what number of children constitutes a material change of use requiring planning permission, this is a matter of judgement and different types of dwelling houses can be affected in different ways. More than six children would generally be a change of use requiring planning permission, but each location should be treated on its merits.

It is difficult to judge potential damage bearing in mind it is not known whether the maximum number of proposed children will be accommodated on a regular basis. However, the potential adverse impact on the road and amenity when accommodating twelve children compared to six is significantly greater and this application should be assessed on maximum numbers.

One of the options available to Members would be to consider a temporary consent so that the impact of the proposal can be assessed. Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions advises that temporary consent is normally only appropriate where applicant proposes temporary development or where trial run is needed to assess the effect of the development in the area. Thus a reason for granting temporary permission should not be because of the effect on the amenities of the area. Instead, these objections should be met by conditions. If conditions cannot be devised, the only course open is to refuse permission.

In this case accepting that planning permission is required for the development i.e. more than six children, the adequacy of the road access is fundamental.

If this application was for a single infill plot then it would be a sound reason to refuse the application on inadequate construction of the road. This application comparing its level of use to this example would be far greater and accordingly the Highway Engineer's recommendation for refusal should carry substantial weight. The Highway Engineer advises that Heathfield Road is unmade/of inadequate construction and not suitable to carry the additional vehicles that this proposal will generate.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations the proposal is considered to present adverse impact on occupiers of neighbouring property primarily due to the inadequate construction of the access to serve intended use.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposal, by reason of its use of part of a dwelling house in a residential area would have a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring property, by reason of noise, disturbance and general pedestrian and vehicular activity at and within the vicinity of the site and would also be contrary to policies D1 (Standards of Design) and U8 (The Use of Private Dwellings for Playgroup/Pre-School Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of the unmade and inadequate construction of Heathfield Road and the additional vehicles that this proposal will generate. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

11.	TCP/25339/B P/00958/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West Registration Date: 09/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss D. Cooper Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr A R Curzon Retention of hardstanding Cliff Cottage, Seven Sisters Road, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381XA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

An employee of Planning Services has an interest in the application.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application for which the processing of it has taken eight weeks to date due to preparing the report for the first available committee

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Cliff Cottage is a residential property which fronts onto Seven Sisters Road, some 2 mile from the centre of Ventnor. To the east is a tennis court, to the west is the adjoining property Uphill. A portion of the frontage of the property adjacent to the highway has been opened for use as a parking area. Some properties in close proximity have similar open frontages used as parking areas.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

End of terrace property. Proposal is for retention of hardstanding in the form of a lay-by. The lay-by has been created on the south side of the road and surfaced with pea gravel with natural stone boulders marking the perimeters.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is outside the development envelope for Ventnor but within the St Lawrence Conservation Area. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D4 (External Building Works), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant

In particular Policy TR7 states that applications will be approved where they take account of matters for highway safety to ensure safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians and that any new vehicular access provides safe conditions for all road users. Policy D4 relates to planning applications minimizing damage to landscape, wildlife, trees and other aspects worthy of preservation. Policy C1 states planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape and should be for the benefit of the people who live there and B6 states that applications which preserve and enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area will be approved.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer has inspected the site and recommends approval of the application on the grounds that the hardstanding conforms with highway safety.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The Highway Engineer recommends approval of the application on the grounds that the hardstanding maintains highway safety and allows a vehicle to park clear of the carriageway. The development would be in accordance with Policy TR7.

The site is within the St Lawrence Conservation Area and therefore the development must be seen to protect or enhance its character. In this particular case the surfacing is acceptable in colour and texture, harmonising with the natural stone in the area.

This part of the Conservation Area is characterised by large houses in their own grounds and the development has opened up vistas into the area, therefore I believe the proposal is acceptable in the context of the Conservation Area.

Access was constructed prior to the submission of the application and if refused, will need to be subject of enforcement action requiring closure of the access and reinstatement of boundary treatment.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on 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 given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the application is in accordance with Policy TR7, Policy D4, Policy C1 and Policy B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The car parking area shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. A maximum of 1 car shall be parked in the hardstanding and shall be parked parallel to Seven Sisters Road (so the vehicle does not obstruct/intrude into the highway). Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) E/11492/S Unauthorised change of use of garage from mixed use of petrol sales and car repairs, with car sales being ancillary, to predominantly used car sales and car repairs, removal of front boundary wall allowing the crossing of the footpath by vehicles. Cheep ‘n’ Cheerful Car Sales, York Avenue Garage, East Cowes.

Officer: Mrs H Byrne Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the current level of car sales and/or the reinstatement of the front boundary wall of the site.

Background

A complaint was received In August 2002 that the front boundary wall of the site had been removed, allowing vehicular traffic to be driven over the pavement area in order to be displayed on the forecourt.

An enforcement officer visited the site and although no vehicles were being driven over the footpath at the time of the visit, there were several displayed in such a way that they protruded onto the pavement. Whilst the pavement is particularly wide in this area the overhanging cars are still considered a hazard to pedestrians. The enforcement officer also noted that cars were being displayed in the entrance to the site and therefore any customers would be inclined to park on the road outside which is double yellow lined.

The history of the site was investigated and it was found that the site was unused for approximately four years prior to the current use and that the petrol pumps and associated tanks were removed when an application was made to develop the site. Before this the garage was mainly a petrol filling station with a car repairs and MOT workshop, there was some new and used car sales.

An application for the change of use was invited in March 2003, but to date no application has been forthcoming.

The following unitary development plan is considered to apply in the circumstance.

Policy G4 General Locational Criteria

Policy TR7 Highway considerations for new development

Financial Implications

None.

Options

I. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the use of the site for car sales.

2. To under-enforce by serving an Enforcement Notice, which would accept the current level of car sales, but specify that:

(i) The front boundary wall must be reinstated, no part of any boundary wall

or fence, nor any hedge to mark the boundary shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1 metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant splays shall be kept free of obstruction.

(ii) A turning space is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. This space shall thereafter always be kept for such use.

(iii) Space shall be provided within the site for the parking of 5 customer vehicles and such provision shall be retained.

Time for compliance – 28 days after the notice takes effect

3. To take no further action in respect of the change of use

Conclusion

In summary it is accepted that over a period of time a use may intensify to the degree where a change of use may of occurred (particularly when it replaces another use) and I believe this to be the case. The complaint received specifically referred to the removal of the boundary wall and subsequent problems and not to the use intensification. On balance I believe that given the previous use of the site as a petrol station, it’s use as a car sales lot is not inappropriate and that if an application were made it is likely to be approved subject to conditions. The opportunity has been taken of discussing the operation with the Highway Engineer and his views taken into account in putting forward issues to be addressed in any conditions. One of these would be to seek to re establish a boundary feature that would stop vehicles crossing the public footpath whilst it would also be appropriate to require a designated turning area and customer parking area within the site.

On the basis that the operator has declined the invitation to apply but it seems that a scheme could be supported subject to conditions, this is a situation where the Authority could under-enforce which is a procedure through which less onerous remedial steps could be specified then requiring the use to cease.

By under-enforcing, the current level of use can remain, whilst the problem of overhanging cars and cars being driven over the footpath can be prevented, together with the provision of a customer car parking area which would also stop vehicles parking on the road.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to take enforcement action, 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, afforded to both the applicant and third parties affected by the continuation of this service. Whilst it is recognised that there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed it is also recognised that this development may interfere with the rights of other owners / occupiers of the properties in the area and other third parties and in particular those affected by the continuation of this service. It is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aims of the Planning Legislation and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

2. To under-enforce by serving an Enforcement Notice, which would accept the current level of car sales, but specify that:

(i) The front boundary wall must be reinstated, no part of any boundary wall or fence, nor any hedge to mark the boundary shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1 metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant splays shall be kept free of obstruction.

(ii) 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 a forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept for such use.

(iii) Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained.

Time for compliance – 28 days after the notice takes effect.

(b) TCP/17575E Sol Training operation at Bouldnor Forest, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

The purpose of this report is to update Members on the recent developments at this site following the refusal of planning permission in June 2002 and to consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to the single remaining outstanding breach of planning control.

Background

At the 25 June 2002 Development Control Committee meeting Members refused planning permission for the continued use of training centre, and retention of dwelling to provide manager’s accommodation at Fort Bouldnor, Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight. Planning permission was refused on nine grounds.

On the basis that the operation had already commenced Members also authorised enforcement action against any unauthorised activities. These were identified as follows:

a) Continued use of the site as a training centre.

b) The formation of a unit of residential accommodation.

c) Alterations and the addition of new buildings to support the unauthorised use.

Members will note that the description of the planning application related to the first two elements against which enforcement action was proposed. Although building works had taken place creating structures to support the use it was the applicants wish to get the principle agreed in the first instance before going on to resolve the other outstanding issues.

Members will recall that this site had previously been used as a Ministry of Defence training facility. In pre-application discussions with Sol Training and as part of the assessment of the planning application which was subsequently made, it was the view of the Local Planning Authority that the use of Bouldnor Forest which had taken place under the Circular 14/84 regulations, exempting Government departments from requiring the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority meant that any previous use was extinguished when the MOD vacated the site.

Following the decision to refuse planning permission in June 2002 Sol Training employed a planning consultant who raised the issue with the Local Planning Authority that the regulations did appear to state that the use of the site as a training centre could be passed on to a third party when the MOD ceased to use the site unless this was specifically excluded in a written agreement. Members may recall that applications made under Circular 18/84 are not dealt with in the sense that the Local Planning Authority is being asked to make a formal decision but they are simply being asked to comment on a proposal to be undertaken by the Crown. There are no records showing that the LPA was first approached when Bouldnor Forest began to be used as a training facility but there are records relating to subsequent operations within the forest by the MOD. On that basis, it does appear that the Local Planning Authority has accepted the use of the land in connection with training. An examination of the legislation, together with discussions with the Council’s own Solicitor did indicate that there was merit in the claim that the use could be passed on and the matter needed to be further investigated.

Notwithstanding these discussions regarding the use of the site, the Local Planning Authority did pursue the service of an Enforcement Notice with regards to the residential accommodation which had been formed and this Notice was issued on 22 November 2002 with an effective date of 15 January 2003 and a compliance date of 15 October 2003. That Notice requires the cessation of the use of an identified building as residential accommodation and the dismantling of any additions to the building and its reversion back to its original simple structure. No appeal has been submitted against this Enforcement Notice and accordingly we are simply waiting for the compliance date to arrive.

A Planning Appeal was submitted against the June 2002 refusal of planning permission and that appeal was dated 20 December 2002. Whilst that appeal was in process and bearing in mind the ongoing discussions regarding the question over the authorised use of the site it was not felt appropriate to serve the Enforcement Notice relating to the use and which would have also included the building works.

On 2 January 2003 an application was made seeking a Lawful Development Certificate for the continued use of the land and original buildings as a training centre. Members will be aware that an application for a Lawful Development Certificate is determined purely on the factual evidence with regards to the use concerned and no account is taken of planning policy or general desirability or otherwise of the operation. The Case Officer discussed the matter with the Council’s Solicitor and Counsels advice was also taken. During that process the opportunity was taken to reaffirm with Counsel that the interpretation of Circular 18/84 which allows the use to be passed on to a third party was correct. A Lawful Development Certificate was issued in June 2003 accepting “continued use of land and original buildings as an outdoor activity training centre at Fort Bouldnor.” The reason for issuing the Notice was “In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 21 of the Department of Environment Circular 18/84 (Crown Land and Crown Development) any use of land and/or buildings which the Crown Agency institutes is a lawful use and, in the absence of any agreement between the Local Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence under Section 301 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the cessation of the use of Fort Bouldnor as an outdoor activity training centre to when they vacated the site, the use can be continued by a third party without risk of enforcement”.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To note the recent issuing of a Certificate of Existing Lawful Use or Development with regards to the use of land and original buildings as an outdoor activity training centre and to accept that no enforcement action can now be taken with regards to this activity.

2. To note the information contained in this report but to reaffirm the proposal to take enforcement action with regards to the additional building works and new buildings and to proceed with the service of an Enforcement Notice on this aspect alone.

3. To note the changed circumstances with the issuing of the Lawful Development Certificate and to note that this does fundamentally change the position from which the Local Planning Authority should view these unauthorised works and under those circumstances to invite without prejudice to the final decision a retrospective planning application to cover these outstanding matters. Applicant to be requested to submit application within next 28 days. Failure to submit within timescale to result in service of Enforcement Notice.

Conclusion

Of the three elements against which the enforcement action was originally authorised, the matter with regards to the use of the land has now been resolved following the issuing of the Lawful Development Certificate whilst the Enforcement Notice with regards to the formation of the residential accommodation unit has already been served and we are simply waiting for the time period to pass. This only leaves any possible enforcement action with regards to the alterations and new building works that have taken place in support of the use of the site.

Officers have been asked by several interested parties why the enforcement notices relating to the use and the associated building works have not been served. These parties have been advised of the recent issuing of the LDC and the intention of bringing this report to the Committee.

Members must now consider whether in the light of the changed circumstances the operators should be invited to make a retrospective planning application to cover the unauthorised works or whether they wish Officers to proceed using the original enforcement authorisation and serve a Notice.

Members will recall that the additional works and new buildings were not part of the original application. Accordingly they have not been fully assessed through the process of determining a planning application. Those matters currently under consideration are:

a) the enclosure of an open building which originally consisted of some support columns/pillars and a roof

b) a structure which is used for outdoor preparation and eating of meals and includes various tables and benches

c) the construction of a large wooden storage building

d) an open sided lean-to on the southern elevation of the galley (kitchen) building

e) a food storage building 1.24 m x 2.5 m

f) a structure providing shower and WC facility 2.44 m x 2.27 m

g) a building used as a tuck shop and bike store 2.06 m x 4.31 m

In my view, the issuing of the Lawful Development Certificate does fundamentally change the position from which the Local Planning Authority should view the supporting structures and buildings. This position has changed from an interpretation that the forest had no authorised use associated with it to one where its use as an outdoor activity training centre has been accepted.

The site lies in the open countryside, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast and Site of Importance For Nature Conservation. It also lies adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the coastline is designated as a Candidate Special Area of Conservation. The battery and gun emplacement and a pillar box within the site are designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. In recognition of these constraints the site carries with it appropriate landscape and nature conservation policy designations as expressed in the UDP.

Whilst I note the policy constraints outlined above which apply to this site, I believe, a retrospective planning application should be invited although the operator should be advised that the intensification/concentration of activity in the western part of the site which lies closer to the residential property which is not controlled by the operator is an issue which should be given due consideration in any submission.

In coming to this recommendation to invite a planning application 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 impact this development has on the occupants of neighbouring properties has been carefully considered. On balance, it is believed that the invitation to make a retrospective planning application (without prejudice to the final decision) is the most appropriate way forward and is a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

1. To note the recent issuing of a Certificate of Existing Lawful Use or Development with regards to the use of land and original buildings as an outdoor activity training centre and to accept that no enforcement action can now be taken with regards to this activity.

2. To note the changed circumstances with the issuing of the Lawful Development Certificate and to note that this does fundamentally change the position from which the Local Planning Authority should view these unauthorised works and under those circumstances to invite without prejudice to the final decision a retrospective planning application to cover these outstanding matters. Applicant to be requested to submit application within next 28 days. Failure to submit within timescale to result in service of Enforcement Notice.

(c) E/25477 Use of dwelling house for the operation of a taxi service, 34 Mayfield Drive, Newport, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mrs H Byrne Tel: 01983 823569

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the current use to cease.

Background

A complaint was originally made back in July 2000 about these premises alleging that a taxi business was being run from the address. An enforcement officer investigated the allegation with the result that the officer did not feel that a material change of use had taken place, however the owner was told that the Local Planning Authority would review the situation, should the use intensify.

In March 2003 two fresh complaints were received alleging that a taxi business that was being run from the above address had intensified to such a degree that a material change of use had occurred. In particular the complaints highlighted the fact that vehicles belonging to the taxi service and the private cars of the taxi drivers were being parked on the road causing problems for local residents.

After the complaints were made in March 2003 an enforcement officer visited the site on several occasions to monitor the situation. Between two and four of the taxis were parked on the driveway at any one time with some of the larger vehicles being parked on the road. The private cars of the taxi drivers could not be identified. The business also owns a small coach but this was never seen near the premises.

A letter was sent to the owner of the property, advising that in the Local Planning Authority’s opinion a material change of use had taken place and if an application were to be made it would be unlikely to gain favourable officer support, accordingly they should therefore consider seeking alternative premises. The owner responded to the letter by saying that he had pre empted this decision as he was aware that the business had grown to a level where it was unreasonable to operate from a private dwelling and was already in the process of finding sites to accommodate the vehicles. The only part of the business that he wanted to continue running from the residence was the operation of the radio, which his wife undertook. No members of the public called at the house as all taxis in service operated from the taxi rank.

The following unitary development plan policies are considered to apply in the circumstance.

Policy G4 General locational criteria

Policy G10 Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses

Policy D1 Standards of Design

Policy TR7 Highway considerations for new development

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the business as a whole to be operated from the premises.

Time for compliance – 3 months after the notice takes effect

2. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the business to be operated from the premises but accept that the radio operation can remain, providing it involves no staff travelling to the property.

Time for compliance – 3 months after the notice takes effect

3. To take no further action in respect of the taxi business.

Conclusion

The property in question lies within a large residential area where parking is somewhat limited and could potentially cause highway safety problems. No provision has been made by the owner to ensure the safe movement of traffic, most of the properties in the area have a small amount of off street parking, however the majority of residents park their vehicles on the road. Whilst it is appreciated that no one has the right to park on the road, policy TR7 does refer to consideration being given to the safety of both vehicular traffic and pedestrians when considering an application or indeed enforcement action. The main concern of this taxi business operating from the residential property is the adverse effect on the neighbouring properties. Policies G10 and D1 advise that before granting planning permission, the council should take into account the potential for conflict between existing, adjoining or surrounding development and activities. Proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing adjoining or nearby activities. A suitable alternative site being used for the storage of taxis and other vehicles whilst not in use would alleviate the parking situation. It remains unclear at present how fruitful the search for an alternative site has been and so the possibility exists for this site to continue in use for some time to come. To avoid any misunderstandings and encourage the operator to find alternative premises in a realistic timescale, I believe that enforcement action should be authorised against the use at Mayfield Drive.

I have been assured by the owner that the radio operation does not involve additional staff members and therefore the fact this would still be carried out from the residential property would not pose any problem to neighbouring properties.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to take enforcement action, 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, afforded to both the applicant and third parties affected by the continuation of this service. Whilst it is recognised that there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed it is also recognised that this development may interfere with the rights of other owners / occupiers of the properties in the area and other third parties and in particular those affected by the continuation of this service. It is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aims of the Planning Legislation and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

2. To serve an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of the business to be operated from the premises but accept that the radio operation can remain, providing it involves no staff travelling to the property.

Time for compliance – 3 months after the notice takes effect.

(d) Interpretation of Planning Conditions relating to alterations/extensions to domestic properties

Officer: Mr S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

The purpose of this report is to identify a common response which the Local Planning Authority should adopt to queries regarding extensions or alterations to domestic properties where a standard condition was originally applied when the property was first approved, that is more restrictive than current permitted development rights would allow.

Background

During the 1960s and 1970s it was common practice for planning permissions for residential dwellings to be approved with a standard condition which restricted any alterations or extensions which were capable of being viewed from the public highway. The typical condition read as follows:-

“No enlargement, improvement, or other alteration of the building shall be undertaken which will materially affect the external appearance, as seen from the public highway unless the further consent of the Borough Council is obtained.”

Members will be aware that householder permitted development rights as set out in Part 1 Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 set out a series of criteria which alterations or extensions to a dwelling house must comply with to avoid the need for the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority to be obtained. None of the criteria specified in the current legislation cover the aspect of the proposed works being viewed from the highway. The imposition of the old condition therefore imposes an extra layer of regulation beyond the current legislative background. There is clearly a need for a decision to be made on how the Local Planning Authority should respond when dealing with queries relating to householder permitted development rights on properties where the old condition is present.

For example if the owner of such a property visited or rang the office asking for advice on an extension or alteration, an Officer would not be aware (without fully researching all the planning history) that this condition had been imposed. It is therefore possible for the existence of the condition to be overlooked. Researching all the relevant planning history would take up considerable resources and mean that the Council could not deal with what should be a very simple and straightforward enquiry. Secondly there are also implications for enforcement investigations if this condition has been breached both in terms of researching the planning history and a concern that should any action be proposed it would be unlikely to be successful at appeal or in any prosecution.

Financial Implications

None

Options

1. To note the contents of the report but to continue to judge each enquiry with regards all the conditions imposed.

2. To note the contents of the report and accept the condition of the type referred to has outlived its usefulness and to determine and judge any enquiries or enforcement investigation with regards to householders exercising permitted development rights on the current legislation as expressed in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Conclusion

The application of the criteria outlined in the standard condition adds a further layer of regulation which in the light of current legislative background is, I consider, unnecessary. It therefore seems appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to judge any enquiries with regards to permitted development rights to be based on the current legislative background alone. This is reflected in the recommendation below.

For Members information, the recommendation below would not remove the condition as the actual number of properties covered by the condition is unknown but would simply confirm that the Local Planning Authority does not propose to enforce this condition and judge any enquiry on current legislation as expressed in the GPDO only.

In coming to this recommendation not to enforce this type of condition any further, 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 impact of no longer enforcing this condition on the amenities of the surrounding area and on immediate properties has been considered but it is believed that the existing legislation is sufficient to control any potential adverse affects. Accordingly, this decision is considered proportionate to the legitimate aims as expressed through the Planning Act, the Council’s own Unitary Development Plan policies and in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

2. To note the contents of the report and accept the condition of the type referred to has outlived its usefulness and to determine and judge any enquiries or enforcement investigation with regards to householders exercising permitted development rights on the current legislation as expressed in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services