2.

TCP/03563/E   P/01109/03  Parish/Name:  Freshwater

Registration Date:  02/06/2003  -  Outline Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr. A. Pegram           Tel:  (01983) 823566

 

Outline for 14 low fossil energy living units for the 50 plus age group with associated community facilities & parking

land at Sandpipers Hotel & rear of Sandpipers Glen, Coastguard Lane, Freshwater, PO40

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

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

 

PROCESSING INFORMATION

 

This is a major application. 

 

The processing of this application has taken ten weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications as this was the first meeting of the Committee at which the matter could realistically be considered.  However, if determined at this meeting, the application would have been dealt with within the thirteen week performance target for major submissions.

 

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

Application relates to area of land located at northern end of Coastguard Lane, immediately to west of Afton Marsh.  In addition, application also relates to small area of lane within curtilage of Sandpipers Hotel, immediately adjacent to and accessed off public car park within Freshwater Bay.  Main body of site is, for the most part, unmanaged and somewhat overgrown and is enclosed by natural growth, containing several small trees and shrubs.  The site is presently accessed off Coastguard Lane over private driveway running between existing properties.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

TCP/3563D/S/22276 - Outline planning permission for dwelling on land adjacent The Glen was refused in December 1987 on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

 

Land not allocated residential development in local plans.

 

Detrimental impact on amenities and character of area.

 

Undesirable backland development prejudicial to character and amenities of the area and privacy of adjoining properties.

 

Proposal would set precedent for future applications of similar nature.

 

Unsatisfactory access to serve development by reason of inadequate construction.

 

The application was subsequently the subject of an appeal, dismissed in August 1988.

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

Outline planning permission is sought for 14 low fossil energy living units to be occupied by persons of 50 years of age and over with associated community facilities and parking.  Siting of buildings and means of access are to be considered at this stage with all other matters reserved for subsequent approval.  With regard to means of access, pedestrian and limited vehicular access would be provided over Coastguard Lane whilst it is intended that main parking facilities would be provided within curtilage of an adjacent hotel premises with access from the public car park within the Bay.

 

Whilst seeking outline planning permission only, information which accompanies application indicates that accommodation would be provided in a single and two storey building with community hall forming an integral part of the building.  Community hall would represent relatively small element of the overall floor area of the building.  Information which accompanies submission indicates that applicants intend to adopt energy conservation and other environmentally friendly measures in construction and occupation of the development, including grey water system, solar and photovoltaic cells and a sewage reed plant.  Applicants also intend to promote a Green Transport Plan providing for an electric powered rural community bus and/or electric cars.  The intention of the scheme is to promote sustainable development while increasing the quality of life for the future occupants of the units.

 

Application was accompanied by information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to this report as an Appendix.  Applicants have subsequently submitted further document expanding on this information which is also attached.  In the supporting information, the site is described as a domestic garden area and it is, therefore, suggested that proposal makes use of brownfield site and would create a "rounding off" of the existing linear development along Coastguard Lane.

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 - General Policy and Principles contains section on sustainable development.  The guidance note advises that the Government is committed to the principles of sustainable development set out in Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy (1994).  In addition the guidance note advises that the strategy recognises the important role of the planning system in regulating the development and use of land in the public interest.  The guidance note provides details of issues which should be addressed by a sustainable framework including provision for the nation's needs for commercial and industrial development, food production, minerals extraction, new homes and other buildings, while respecting environmental objectives and conservation of both the cultural heritage and natural resources (including wildlife, landscape, water, soil and air quality) taking particular care to safeguard designations of national and international importance.

 

Application site is located immediately adjacent but outside the development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.  Site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent Afton Marsh designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a local nature reserve.  Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

 

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

 

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

 

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies), will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position, will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

 

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

 

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

 

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

 

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

 

D1 - Standards of Design.

 

D2 - Standards for Development within the site.

 

D13 - Energy Conservation.

 

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

 

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

 

H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

 

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

 

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

 

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

 

C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

 

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

 

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

Highway Engineer comments that Sandpipers Hotel car park is accessed via the Council public car park and that there is a presumption against any new development being accessed off a public car park and, although the right of access from the car park already exists, this is for the existing level of parking that services the Sandpipers buildings.  As the proposal is not on this site, he considers that car parking to serve the proposed development should be accessed off Coastguard Lane.  In addition, he comments that the additional parking as proposed would obstruct the existing access and result in loss of some marsh.  For the above reasons, Highway Engineer recommends refusal.

 

Detailed comments have been received from the Planning Policy Manager as follows:

 

"The site is located outside the development envelope for Freshwater and is therefore "countryside" for the purposes of the UDP.  It is also within the AONB and adjoining an SSSI and local nature reserve.

 

Policy G5 states that outside defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location.  The policy goes on to list a number of categories of development one of which (g) is; appropriate small scale specific types of housing development.

 

These "specific types of housing development" are detailed under Policy H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.  The proposal at Sandpipers Glen could only be considered favourably if it were; (e) a specific locally affordable housing scheme.  This specific exception is dealt with in Policy H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

 

Policy H15 allows as a rural exception consideration of proposals where an identified local need for affordable housing has been established and the proposal cannot be accommodated in any other way.

 

In my view the proposal cannot be considered as affordable housing given the definition and pre-amble policies H14 and H15 of the UDP.  As such it should be considered as market housing.  To do otherwise would both undermine the key principles of the UDP with little sustainable justification and potentially lead to any number of similar proposals coming forward outside other settlements on the Island.  The fact that the site is prominent within the landscape, located within the AONB and adjoins an SSSI and Nature Reserve would allow for large numbers of other sites on the Island to warrant similar consideration if this scheme were approved.  This could ultimately lead to any number of schemes coming forward outside of any agreed planning framework (given that H15 would be fatally flawed) and undermine the credibility of the UDP.  This change of approach would clearly confuse partner RSL's who are currently working with the Council and the RCC to tackle identified rural affordable housing needs in line with H15 through a jointly funded rural housing enabler.

 

The application emphasises the sustainable nature of the proposal, however, it fails to meet the key targets of sustainability laid down in paragraph 29 - 31 of PPG3 in terms of its location.  Although the Council is keen to encourage the detailed proposals relating to the sustainability of the housing design this can only be credible if it adheres to the basic principle of sustainability in terms of its location and the framework of the UDP which is based on the principles of sustainability.

 

Although the scheme itself is relatively small, in my view it may warrant the Government Office calling in the application given that it will be viewed as a dangerous precedent to a number of key national policy objectives."

 

Comments have also been sought from the Housing Initiative Officer who advises that, having checked with the public register of Registered Housing Associations and cooperatives, he is unable to find the applicant's organisations listed.  He comments that the UDP does not provide a clear definition that affordable housing must be provided by a registered housing association, although when affordable housing is offered through 106 Agreements then the landlord must be a registered landlord.  He acknowledges that this scheme is below the threshold and therefore this is not a requirement.  He makes reference to paragraph 7.52 which defines locally affordable housing as

 

"housing designed for those in the local area whose income generally deprives them of access to open market housing as a result of the relationship between income and market price.  PPG3 states that developers' willingness to provide an element of affordable housing within residential schemes is a material consideration in dealing with the planning application." 

 

He also makes reference to Policy H9 which acknowledges that developments outside boundaries may be considered if they meet a specific locally affordable housing scheme.  This raises the question with him as to whether there is a specific local affordable housing need and whether the Housing Department is aware of such a need.  On checking records held by his department, Housing Initiative Officer advises that there has been no approach to the Housing Department regarding the current proposal.  Furthermore, he comments that good practice from Rural Housing Enablers states that it is up to the local area to undertake "local housing needs assessments" to provide the evidence of such schemes.  In this respect, I am advised that following discussions with the Rural Housing Enabler based at the Rural Community Council, Freshwater has never been identified as a specific area with highlighted problems.  The current housing waiting list reveals that there is a need for twelve one bedroom ground floor, five two bedroom ground floor and two three bedroom ground floor flats.  Housing Initiative Officer concludes that only need which he can see the developers having justified is that they have their own waiting list of willing occupants for this scheme which Housing Department are unaware of.     

 

Senior Countryside Officer advises that proposal raises a number of serious concerns with particular regard to the following issues:

"The site overlooks Afton Marsh SSSI and nature reserve. From many parts of the South Marsh parts of the proposed development will be visible, and detrimentally affect the amenity of the nature reserve. The view southwest from the south marsh at present is one which is sympathetic and semi-natural, with some glimpses of buildings all of which are of a similar style. This new development will affect that view not only because of its location, but because of its style which will be quite different from anything else in the area. Whilst challenging design is to be commended and encouraged, it is not true to say that simply because a design is startling or unusual it is unnecessary to ask whether or not it is appropriate in the landscape. In this instance I do not consider this development to be beneficial to the amenity of this important nature reserve.

The main access to the South Marsh is down Coastguard Lane and along a footpath immediately in front of the proposed development. This access and footpath is at present a very attractive informal approach to the nature reserve, making a leafy lane which leads the visitor gently down onto the marsh itself, or off along the footpath towards Blackbridge Road. The nature reserve is an important tourist facility and amenity for local people. This route is a part of the very well-used informal tourist route walking from Yarmouth Common to Freshwater Bay. Considerable effort has been expended by the Council and predecessor authorities over more than 20 years to keep this entrance and access in good order. If this development is implemented it will completely change the character of this access, and inevitably urbanise the area, losing a considerable amount of the local distinctiveness and charm of this very attractive nature reserve at the key entrance. I believe that any formal use of this site is inappropriate for this reason alone, and the line of the existing development envelope supports this view.

The proposed drainage arrangements make very commendable use of a reed bed. If properly operated and maintained such a system would be an interesting and useful feature of such a development and add wildlife value. However I am concerned at the use of such a facility on this particular site. It is well elevated above the South marsh, which is in itself extremely sensitive to contamination. In the normal day-to-day operation of the reed bed system there is no chance of damage to the marsh. However, such systems do need special care to ensure that they continue to operate properly. I am concerned that if there were to be a failure of the system, for example by poor maintenance, or flooding, or deliberate damage, the risk of a catastrophic contamination incident would be considerable. Such an incident would only need to happen once in the lifetime of such a system - say 50 years - to cause damage to the marsh which could not be repaired. I would be very happy to see such a system installed in many locations on the Isle of Wight, but in this particular site I believe that the scale of the hazard it presents is such that it cannot be justified."

 

AONB Planning and Information Officer comments that site lies within the AONB where primary purpose is the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty through the consideration of landscape character.  She advises that in pursuing this primary purpose, the Countryside Agency has clarified that account should be taken of the social and economic needs of the local communities.  The AONB unit is generally supportive of the aims and objectives outlined in this proposal, namely to provide much needed additional independent housing for local people at reasonable prices.  They are also supportive of the green credentials outlined in the documentation submitted in support of the proposal.  However, they are aware that there are elements of the proposal that may potentially conflict with some policies of the UDP, particularly those relating to location of development outside the development boundary and protection of the landscape character of the AONB.

 

Project Co-ordinator - Green Island Awards (Agenda 21) supports application for following reasons:

 

Proposal involves innovative approach to residential development with potential to be flagship project for the Island.

 

Proposal embodies all concepts of Agenda 21.

 

Proposal would raise profile of sustainable construction on the Island and would hopefully facilitate further similar developments.

 

Proposal aims to address wider issues such as sustainable transport and social sustainability.

 

Challenges conventional forms of development and is architecturally challenging.

 

Overall, he considers proposal to be extremely progressive, it is unique, well researched, makes a statement and is an opportunity for the Island to begin to lead the way.

 

Environment Agency raises no objection to proposal and provides general advice to Local Planning Authority and applicant in respect of sustainable drainage systems. 

 

English Nature raise no objection to proposal, subject to Environment Agency formally confirming that the development will not have adverse hydrological impact on the SSSI.  In formulating their comments, English Nature indicate that they have carried out consultations with the Environment Agency to establish whether or not the development is likely to compromise the opportunities to manage water levels within the SSSI now or in the future either by removing flood storage capacity or by increasing the number of dwellings at risk of flooding within the flood plain.  They have been informed by the Agency that there is no possibility of the development causing a problem in this respect.  Furthermore, they have sought advice from the Agency as to whether the development will increase the pollution loading from surface run off or other discharges in the SSSI and have been informed that the Agency will require the developer to install a sustainable urban drainage system which will prevent this site receiving any significant increase in pollution loading above background levels.

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds that site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that development would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.  In addition, they comment that access appears to be over a public footpath and consider this to be backland development of a site which is not within the Unitary Development Plan.

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

 

Application has attracted eleven letters (ten from local residents and one from mainland resident) objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

 

Proposal is contrary to a number of policies of the UDP.

 

Site is outside development envelope.

 

Overdevelopment of site in rural area.

 

Permission previously refused for bungalow within grounds of The Glen.

 

Site within AONB and adjacent Afton Marsh which is a local nature reserve and SSSI.

 

Status of land as brownfield site is questioned - suggested that site is agricultural land.

 

Proposal is contrary to PPG3 due to lack of sequential test.

 

Adverse impact on heritage coast.

 

Negative impact on Afton nature reserve.

 

Adverse impact on the ongoing restoration/maintenance of hedgerows in the area.

 

Negative impact of additional vehicle movements on local roads.

 

Coastguard Lane with blind corner at junction with Gate Lane would become inevitable short cut.

 

Coastguard Lane unsuitable as access to serve development and use of hotel car park as proposed not considered to be practical answer - level of parking proposed is inadequate.

 

Development will have adverse impact on wildlife habitat in area and result in loss of trees.

 

Proposal involves appropriation of public footpath and use of Council car park for access.

 

Design of buildings out of keeping with surrounding properties.

 

Development would set precedent for further development in area adversely impacting on beauty of area.  Additional units proposed would place unsustainable burden on already overstretched services including sewage, water, drainage and NHS.

 

Active badger sett in area.

 

Whilst there is a shortage of accommodation for over 50s in area, more than half units proposed would be more than adequate.

 

Inadequate space provided for recycling and energy efficient systems - while the scheme has some merit it is unsuitable for this site.

 

Green transport proposals not viable on scheme of this size leading to greater car ownership with inadequate parking within proposal.

 

Green solutions impractical at this site and would add significantly to cost of project - would not provide low cost homes.

 

Properties would be at risk from flooding.

 

Proposed water/sewage regime would disturb equilibrium of this sensitive site.

 

Submission not supported by environmental impact, housing need, highways or transport study.

 

Eight sites within settlement allocated for development in UDP which make sufficient provision for the life of the plan to 2011.

 

Adequacy of reed beds to cater for water from properties questioned and concern expressed regarding consequential pollution.

 

Application has attracted 37 letters, including one from a mainland resident and one from independent charity based on mainland, and a petition containing 22 signatures supporting proposal and raising following issues:

 

Location of site is ideal making good use of area of land presently used as dump/storage area for variety of items - development would improve aesthetics of site.

 

Property is set well back from Bay Road.

 

Principle of affordable, sustainable and low cost housing accommodation of benefit to the Island.

 

Provision of green project on Island would be tremendous educational boost for all children involving features to safeguard environment.

 

Development could attract visitors from mainland and abroad.

 

Proposal will enhance environment, provide much needed local housing and enhance/improve facilities for local people.

 

Proposed community centre and garden will benefit the Bay.

 

Site borders the development envelope.

 

Access via Coastguard Lane has been carefully considered and proposal will not create any additional problems or use of Lane.

 

Bay is isolated with expensive and unreliable bus service - community centre would be valuable asset.

 

Proposal will meet Agenda 21 objectives.

 

Proposal will help protect the flora and fauna including the provision of a wildlife pond.

 

Large number of properties in area owned/occupied as holiday homes.

 

Existing fossil fuels are in limited supply.

 

Raise awareness locally and nationally of need to build ecologically.

 

A number of those submitting letters in support of the proposal indicate that they are members of the Gate Lane Co-operative, one of the organisations named as applicant in respect of this submission.

 

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

Comments have been received from the Architectural Liaison Officer raising the following issues:

 

Target customers (50+) are an age group that normally have own transport - 6 parking spaces for fourteen units not acceptable.  Community Hall for general use with no parking is untenable.  This could lead to disorder situations over state of parking in small car park and on approach roads.

 

Due to access arrangements, whole area will be susceptible to security issues - no privacy and generally no "defensible space".

 

There appears to be a number of stairs to first floor entrances which, without details, could lead to 'fear of crime' situations which is not acceptable for entry/exit to living units.

 

Lighting raises important issues on such a site - application contains no details in this respect.

 

EVALUATION

 

The application seeks outline consent with siting and means of access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for subsequent approval.  Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether development of site for residential purposes as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether access and parking arrangements have been satisfactorily addressed.

 

Site is located immediately adjacent but outside the development boundary as defined on Unitary Development Plan in an area where further development would generally be resisted, unless it falls within a category of development which may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with policies of the plan.  Information submitted in support of application indicates that the proposed units are intended to provide housing for the 50+ age group and that the development will provide accommodation for members of the applicant's co-operative group who would otherwise find it difficult to find affordable housing.  In accordance with policy H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions, permission may exceptionally be granted for small scale residential developments on sites in or adjoining villages in order to help meet the needs of local people unable to afford market rents or to purchase property outright.  This policy is generally aimed at proposals in or adjacent small rural villages, typically with population below 3,000.  In the case of the current proposal, the site is located adjacent the development boundary of a settlement with a population greater than 3,000 where it would be intended to satisfy affordable housing needs either on identified sites or through opportunities arising from the development of brownfield sites within the defined settlement.  I consider that current application is accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate that there is an identified need for the housing to be provided or that this need could not be satisfied on sites within the defined settlement.  Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposal complies with requirements of policy H15 or can be justified on grounds that it is required to meet a local need.

 

In accordance with policy U1 of the Unitary Development Plan, development involving the provision of health, social, community, religious and education services may exceptionally be permitted where it adjoins the development envelope boundaries of the communities which they are intended to serve.  In considering such proposals, applicants will generally be expected to demonstrate that no land is available within the development envelope of the relevant community to accommodate the proposed facilities.  In the case of the current proposal, whilst accepting that there may be a need for such provision, the community facilities form a relatively small part of the overall development and I do not consider that, in isolation, it would justify approval of the application which also involves provision of 14 units of residential accommodation.

 

Applicants consider proposal to represent a unique project which would incorporate principles of sustainable development, involving provision of low energy housing together with other green initiatives including a green transport plan and creation of a water reed bed and grey water system.  Whilst the Government is committed to promoting sustainable development and, in accordance with policy D13 - Energy Conservation, of the Unitary Development Plan development will be expected to conserve, or make efficient use of energy resources, I do not consider that the fact that the development involves the provision of low energy houses provides sufficient justification to allow development outside the development boundary.  In this respect, Members will recall proposal for three detached dwellings adjacent Binfield House, Mill Lane, Binfield, Newport, which was refused planning permission in November 2002.  The proposal incorporated the principles of sustainable development involving the provision of low energy eco homes as a demonstration project using renewable and recycling technologies.  Permission was refused principally on grounds that the site was located outside the development boundary and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area involving intrusive development out of character with the prevailing rural pattern of development in the locality.

 

The application was the subject of a subsequent appeal which was dismissed in May 2003.  With regard to issue of energy conservation, the Inspector noted that the Council policy allows for development outside defined settlements in exceptional circumstances and acknowledge the beneficial effects of the energy saving technology proposed and the need to have a working, independently validated demonstration project to show potential users, including Housing Association. However, she concluded that this did not provide sufficient justification to allow the development as an exception to policy.

 

Paragraph 2.26 to 2.29 inclusive of the Unitary Development Plan address the issue of sustainable development.  In particular, paragraph 2.27 contains an extract from PPG1 which states as follows:

 

"A key role of the planning system is to enable the provision of homes and buildings, investments and jobs in a way which is consistent with the principles of sustainable development."

 

Furthermore, paragraph 2.28 advises as follows:

 

"This Plan aims to provide a framework to encourage and guide development on the Island and to protect and enhance the environment.  It embodies the objectives of sustainability and indicates the means by which it can be achieved.  It is considered that the Island represents a good example of where the sustainability concept can be properly tested.  This will involve not only considering the impacts both positive and negative, of new development, but also determining the overall level of growth which is necessary and desirable.  This approach will involve assisting and prioritising planned and desirable development while at the same time, clearly indicating the type, location and scale of development which is undesirable and should not be permitted."

 

It is considered that the location of development is an important factor in promoting sustainability.  In particular, development located within defined settlements, close to existing services and public transport links will avoid the need for travel.  In the case of the current proposal, site is not only some distance from Freshwater town centre but is, more importantly, outside the development envelope.  It is considered that even with the electric mini-bus which the applicant's propose, approval of this application would undermine the policies of the Plan and, to a certain extent, the concept of sustainability.  This view is reinforced by advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing which provides advice on identifying areas and sites for development.  This advice advocates the adoption of a sequential approach and paragraph 29 advises as follows:

 

"Local Planning Authorities in preparing Development Plans should adopt a systematic approach to assessing the development potential of sites, and the redevelopment potential of existing buildings, deciding which are most suitable for housing development and the sequence in which development should take place".

 

In addition, paragraph 31 provides criteria against which sites should be assessed for their potential and suitability for development, including location and accessibility to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car and the potential for improving such accessibility. 

 

Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clearly advises that where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plans, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  In this instance, I consider that, having regard to location of site outside the development envelope boundary, proposal is clearly contrary to policy and I do not consider that there are any other material considerations, including the suggestion that the development is intended to meet a local need or that the energy conservation aspects of the proposal are sufficient to outweigh the general presumption against development in this location.  These arguments could all too easily be repeated in an attempt to justify further development on sites outside the defined development envelope boundary, particularly in less sensitive areas which are not designated for their ecological or landscape value.  In consequence, I consider that approval of the application would set an extremely dangerous precedent and would significantly prejudice and undermine the policies and principles of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Proposal involves provision of six parking spaces within curtilage of a nearby hotel premises.  It is considered that the level of car parking proposed is inadequate to serve the proposed development and, having regard to their location, somewhat divorced from the proposed dwellings and community hall, it is likely that occupants and visitors to the site would ultimately use Coastguard Lane to access the site.  Coastguard Lane is considered to be of substandard construction and of inadequate width to serve the development.  In addition, due to the alignment of the road through the Bay, lack of a pavement and position of adjacent buildings, visibility at junction of the Lane with Coastguard Lane is inadequate.  Having regard to these factors, I agree with the Highways Engineer that the proposal makes inadequate and inappropriate access and parking arrangements to serve the proposed development.

 

Following publication of the original report, letter was received from applicants expressing concern that it did not accurately reflect the philosophy and lifestyle of the proposed community project.  They considered that, whilst any précis is difficult, key issues relating to their particular project had either been sidelined or ignored.  They highlighted nine specific points in their letter which is attached to this report as an appendix.

 

The information which accompanied the application was quite lengthy and, in order to ensure that Members were fully aware of the issues raised, the documentation was attached to the report as an appendix.  Response to the numbered points raised in the applicant’s most recent letter are as follows:

 

1. Comment of the Highways Engineer, indicating the reasons why he has recommended refusal, are contained within the report;

 

2. Community facilities within the area may be insufficient for the work being undertaken but the view is that this does not justify approval of substantial development outside the development envelope;

 

3. Existing derelict state of site is not a planning issue - if it were, all landowner would need to do to obtain planning permission outside development envelope is to allow his property to become overgrown and untidy.  English Nature has raised no objection to the development.  Replanting of trees is welcomed, but need not depend upon the grant of planning permission;

 

4. & 5. These issues are not reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal;

 

6. As in 2 above, it is not thought that these issues are sufficient to substantiate approval of major development outside the development envelope;

 

7. The report refers to provision of community facilities outside but adjoining development envelope boundaries and the view is that those benefits do not justify the approval of fourteen units of residential accommodation outside the development envelope;

 

8. Sustainability issues are addressed in the report and the applicants own project principles were copied and attached to the report previously circulated to Members.  Reference is also made in the report to the view expressed by the previous Appeal Inspector that issues of sustainability, whilst in themselves desirable, did not justify the approval of that particular development, outside the development envelope;

 

9. This is not a material consideration which would justify the approval of major development outside the development envelope.

 

It is understood that, prior to submission of the application, the applicant’s agent met with the former Principal Development Control Engineer (Highways) in order to discuss the highway implications of the proposal.  In terms of the highway implications, the applicant’s agent was advised that additional vehicular access along Coastguard Lane would be totally unacceptable owing to the poor width and visibility at its junction with Gate Lane.  In addition, applicant’s agent was advised that there is a general presumption against allowing new accesses off the Council's car parks and no new access would be acceptable in this case.  It was considered that the present public parking layout was substandard in terms of undersized spaces and aisle width, a problem which the Council intends to rectify in this and other car parks across the Island, and formation of a new access would seriously restrict its freedom to do so.  The former Principal Development Control Engineer (Highways) expressed view that he was uncertain of what right of way exists, if any, over the existing access into Sandpipers from the car park and suggested that this position should be checked with Property Services.  However, he commented that if Sandpipers have an unfettered right to use the route, the additional car park movements would probably not be so great as to warrant an objection to the planning application on traffic grounds, although it would be reasonable to expect a contribution from the developer towards the resurfacing of the car park.

 

Principal Estates Surveyor (Property Services) has confirmed that, whilst there is a general presumption against granting access to properties from public car parks, owners of the Sandpipers Hotel benefit from an annual licence granting them access over the car park within Freshwater Bay.  I am advised that this licence can be terminated at any time, with one year's notice.  Furthermore, the Principal Estates Surveyor confirms that this right of access was originally granted solely for the purposes of serving the Sandpipers Hotel and that, any intention to utilise this access for any other purpose, including to service the proposed development, would provide grounds for termination of the licence.  This could result in the only alternative means of accessing the development being over Coastguard Lane which, as previously stated, is totally unacceptable by reason of inadequate width, construction and visibility at its junction with Gate Lane.        

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the right set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered.  Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of 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 referred to in this report, I consider that, having regard to location of site outside development boundary that development of site as proposed is unacceptable in principle and I do not consider that the issues relating to local need or energy conservation issues are sufficient to outweigh the fundamental policy objection to the proposal.

 

I consider that approval of the application would set an extremely dangerous precedent and would significantly prejudice and undermine the policies and principles of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

            RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of development and would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The proposal as submitted is not supported by sufficient evidence to outweigh Policies restricting residential development in the countryside to that shown to be essential in the interests of agriculture and therefore is contrary to the Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policy S4 (Countryside Will Be Protected From Inappropriate Development) and Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3

Access and parking arrangements as proposed would result in an intensification of the use of the access from the public car park likely to prejudice the safety of vehicles and pedestrians using the car park and Coastguard Lane is considered to be unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width, construction and visibility at its junction with Gate Lane.  Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.