PAPER B2     

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.                  NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

TCP/25055/A                                    Mr and Mrs A Nicholson against refusal for demolition of dwelling and outline for pair of semi-

                                                            detached houses at Hideaway, Bullen Road, Ryde.

                                   

TCP/25258                                          Mr G Lovegrove against refusal for detached bungalow and garage and vehicular access, land adjacent 45 Whitecross Avenue, Shanklin.

 

TCP/11229/B                                       Lind Place Developments against refusal for demolition of shop/workshop and shed/store; erection of detached house and three storey block of six flats at 26 Garfield Road, Ryde. 

 

CAC/11229/C                                      Lind Place Developments against refusal of Conservation Area Consent for demolition of shop/workshop and shed/store; erection of detached house and three storey block of six flats at 26 Garfield Road, Ryde.

 

TCP/15268/A                                       Mr and Mrs K Chessell against refusal of outline for a dwelling with access off Church Road, land rear of 136 High Street, Wootton Bridge.

 

TCP/25209                                          Mr and Mrs M S Humphray against refusal for the formation of raised deck area and summer house at 1 Solent Landing, Embankment Road, Bembridge.

 

 

2.         HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

No new dates to report.

 

 

3.                  REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

(1)               TCP/24621                            Mr S Cooper against non-determination for outline for residential development of six flats, land adjacent Lucknow, Princes Road, Freshwater

 

Officer Recommendation:           Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                    Not determined

 

Appeal Decision:                            Dismissed - 27 June 2003

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      Whether the submitted plans are sufficiently detailed to allow a judgement  to be made on the acceptability of building flats in this location.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      UDP policies control development in the interests of neighbours’ privacy, highway safety and the character and appearance of established residential areas.

 

·                      The proposal is to build flats within a street of two storey houses.

 

·                      The Council is rightly concerned to ensure sufficient detail is submitted at outline stage to ensure a decision is made in accordance with UDP policies.

 

·                      The application plans are scant in detail and are contradictory.

 

·                      In these circumstances, there is a danger that any outline permission granted could prejudice important matters of residential design and layout.

...................................................................................................................................................

 

(b)       TCP/20396/F                           Mr S Sanders against refusal for the construction of chicken hut and hardstanding, retention of pond, storage of seven timber cords at land northeast of Rodgebrook Farm, Whitehouse Road, Newport

 

Officer Recommendation:                Refusal

 

Committee Decision:                        Refusal (Part 1) - 18 Decembr 2002

 

Appeal Decision:                               Dismissed - 30 June 2003

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·                      Whether the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the appearance and character of the countryside having regard to UDP policies which exceptionally permit development in the countryside

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·                      In relation to the pond, this has been excavated but is dry and is not fed by any natural watercourse.

 

·                      It is doubtful the pond’s retention is capable of maintaining and protecting the countryside’s appearance as required by Policy C1.

 

·                      The storage of the timber away from the road would be relatively well screened but there is no evidence that the timber storage is solely in relation to the needs of the agricultural/forestry uses as existing and planned for the site.

 

·                      Unnecessary storage of this kind would erode of the countryside’s openness.

 

·                      The proposed chicken shed and hardstanding to support the proposed chicken rearing enterprise would be supported by Policy G5 but the plans are inadequate in detail in respect of the extent of the hardstanding and screening measures.

 

·                      In the absence of satisfactory details, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the open, rural appearance and character of the area and would not comply with policies C1, G4 and G5.

.....................................................................................................................................................

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.