PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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

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

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

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

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

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

23 MARCH 2004

TCP/01018/G P/00079/04

Hillway Annexe, Hillway Road,

Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355PJ

Retention and completion of work to form two dwellings; alterations to vehicular access, formation of parking spaces

Bembridge

Conditional Approval

A/02342 P/00247/04

Maplin Electronics, Coppins Bridge,

Newport, PO30

5 illuminated fascia signs

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/05371/L P/02122/03

Appley Hotel, Appley Rise,

Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE

Demolition of rear single storey extension; alterations, 3 storey extension and conversion of building to form a total of 11 flats

Ryde

Conditional Approval

TCP/09667/U P/02069/03

Hosiden Besson, Binstead Road,

Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3NL

Demolition of buildings, outline for residential development

Ryde

Refusal

TCP/10828/C P/00707/03

Former Hole in the Wall, Pound Lane, Ventnor, PO38

3 storey building to provide 11 flats; formation of vehicular access and parking area

Ventnor

Conditional Approval

TCP/13058/D P/00377/04

18 Pier Street,

Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO36 8JU

Demolition of building; construction of 11 flats in a 7 storey building with parking on ground floor level; vehicular access (Revised Scheme)

Sandown

Conditional Approval

TCP/20677/M P/00022/04

Land at Sandown Airport, Newport Road,

Sandown, PO36

Construction of 6 buildings to form a clubhouse, office accommodation, a hangar and 3 industrial units; formation of vehicular access

Newchurch

Conditional Approval

TCP/25373/A P/01060/03

Land rear of 5-15 Pallance Road with access off, Selman Gardens,

Cowes, PO31

Outline for residential development of 12 dwellings & access road, (revised scheme)

Northwood

Conditional Approval

TCP/26112 P/00170/04

Land adjacent 1, Sherwood Road,

Newport, PO30

Demolition of outbuilding; outline for end of terrace house

Newport

Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 23 MARCH 2004

(a) TCP/18901/G

Island Motor Salvage, Pritchetts Way, Rookley Industrial Estate, Rookley

To determine whether breach of planning control exists regarding the occupancy of a mobile home on the site.

Rookley

TCP/01018/G P/00079/04 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 13/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr and Mrs J Moore

Retention and completion of work to form two dwellings; alterations to vehicular access, formation of parking spaces

Hillway Annexe, Hillway Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355PJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application raises a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration .

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks and 1 day to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because of the need for determination by the Committee.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a partially reconstructed property situated on the northern side of Hillway Road almost opposite the junction of the lane which leads to Whitecliff Bay Holiday Club.

The area is semi-rural in character with a scattering of dwellings, mostly bungalows and chalet bungalows, along the northern side of Hillway Road with open land to the south. There are fields to the rear of the site and a smaller chalet bungalow to the east with open land to the west and north.

Prior to work taking place, the application property comprised of a single storey flat roofed structure with rendered elevations and a glazed veranda across the front. It is understood that the property was previously used as a dwelling with attached shop/café but has recently been in residential use. There are a number of other structures and outbuildings at the rear of the property and a forecourt/garden area at the front.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1018/C – Consent granted in 1965 for conversion of the shop unit to a self contained flat resulting in two separate units of accommodation at the property.

TCP/1018/E – Refusal of planning permission 7 March 2003 for roof extension and conversion to two units for the reason that the roof extension would be an intrusive addition out of scale and character with the existing and adjoining dwelling and adversely affect the amenities of the locality.

TCP/1018/F – Consent granted on 1 July 2003 for conversion of existing dwelling into two chalet bungalows to include provision of first floor accommodation and replacement roof.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

As mentioned above, consent was recently granted to convert the application property into two chalet bungalows including the provision of first floor accommodation within a newly created pitched roof. It became apparent soon after work commenced that a large section of

the building was being replaced rather than converted, and as such did not comply with the terms of the planning consent.

Furthermore, plans submitted to the Building Control section indicated that the approved front facing gable element on the western side of the building is to be raised by some 600 mm so that it meets the ridgeline of the main roof element. Commencement on site also raised queries regarding the accuracy of the approved street scene drawing, which would appear to have misrepresented the relative height of the new building and the adjoining property to the east.

Consent is therefore sought for the retention and completion of work to form two chalet style bungalows. The revised street scene indicates that the proposed development would sit a further 500 mm higher relative to the neighbouring property to the east. Submitted plans also confirm that the gable feature at the western end of the building would be raised so that it meets the ridgeline of the main roof element. Otherwise, design and external appearance remain the same as the approved scheme.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is situated outside of the development envelope as identified in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are considered to be D1 (Standards of Design) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundary).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer suggests conditions should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval as, in its opinion, the proposal would represent a significant improvement to the street scene.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Inadequate access/parking
Increase in traffic generation
Loss of light to windows serving adjoining property to the east
Undermine stability of adjoining property
Excessive in size

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

There are considered to be two main issues in respect of this application. Firstly, the principle of this development in what is considered to be open countryside for the purposes of planning policy and secondly, scale and mass relative to the adjoining property and the surrounding area in general.

In terms of principle, the previous application established that two separate residential units had existed on this site. The proposal before Members is essentially the replacement of these

flat roofed bungalows with a pair of chalet style dwellings. This is different in policy terms to the extensions and alterations recently permitted.

Given that the site is outside of the development envelope, the application should be considered against Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundary). Of particular note is criterion A which accepts the principle of replacement dwellings where the proposal is of a similar scale and mass to the existing. H9 also draws attention to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) which states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment and that applications will be expected to respect the distinctiveness of the surrounding area as well as being sympathetic in scale, form and detailing.

In assessing the proposal against Policy H9, it is important that the scale and mass of the proposed development is comparable to the building that previously existed rather than the building recently approved. The previous building was of an unusual design with rendered elevations and a flat roof with parapet edging. It was a relatively low key building that had become well anchored into the street scene and the surrounding landscape. Plans of the previous building indicate that it measured some 3.5 metres to the top of the parapet wall. The proposal before Members, although similar in footprint, appears substantially larger than the previous building in terms of scale and mass by reason of a large pitched roof (6.5 metres to ridge) including a prominent gable element at the western end. Taking these points into consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that the previous and proposed buildings are not comparable in terms of scale and mass and therefore consider that this development fails criterion A of Policy H9.

It was accepted in the previous application that the new roof would constitute a large addition to this property but, on balance, would not have appeared out of character or unduly overdominant in respect of the surrounding area in general or the modest neighbouring chalet bungalow in particular. Proposal was also considered against Policy H7 which supports in principle extensions and alterations to existing properties. Given works now involved, proposal should be assessed against relevant Policy, i.e. H9.

It became apparent, however, once work commenced that the approved street scene did not accurately represent the relationship with the adjoining property. This street scene submitted with this application suggests that the proposal would in fact, sit a further 500 mm higher than the adjoining bungalow. This increase in height coupled with the overall scale the proposed building would, in my opinion, render this development as being out of character with the surrounding area in general as well as being incompatible with the mass of the adjoining dwelling. As such, it is considered that this development also fails to comply with Policy D1.

Taking the above points into consideration, I have no alternative but to recommend refusal of this application. Members will also note the retrospective nature of this application and will see that a second recommendation has been included in respect of further action to be taken. In this respect, it is recommended that the applicant be invited to submit a further application within 28 days showing the building to be retained to eaves level but capped with a pitched roof of a more appropriate scale, mass and design. Failure to submit an application within 28 days would result in enforcement action being taken.

HUMAN RIGHTS

interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is the 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 outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposed development would not be of a similar scale or mass to the previous property and as such conflicts with Policy H9 of the UDP. Furthermore, it is considered that the excessive scale and mass would be overdominant and unduly overbearing in respect of the adjoining property in particular and the surrounding area in general and therefore conflicts with Policy D1.

1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Although the Local Planning Authority is willing to consider the replacement of existing dwellings outside the development boundaries of defined settlements, in this specific case the proposal is not considered to be of a similar scale or mass to the building that previously existed and is therefore contrary to Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal, because of the scale and mass of the roof, would be an intrusive addition, out of scale and character with the existing and adjoining dwelling and would have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality contrary to Policy S6 (Be of a High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. Invite without prejudice within 28 days a revised application showing the building to be retained to eaves level but capped with a pitched roof of a more appropriate scale, mass and design. Failure to submit within 28 days to result in enforcement proceedings being instigated.

A/02342 P/00247/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Pan

Registration Date: 05/02/2004 - Advertisement Consent

Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854

Applicant: Maplin Electronics Ltd

5 illuminated fascia signs

Maplin Electronics, Coppins Bridge, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councilor Coburn has requested that the application is considered by the Committee as he is concerned that the illumination of the sign on the St Georges Way (Eastern) elevation of the building would be intrusive to and a source of annoyance to residents of Ash Road.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken six weeks to date. A decision at this meeting would mean that the submission will have been determined within the prescribed eight-week period for determination of applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The proposal relates to the Multiplex building at Coppins Bridge. The site of the Multiplex is bounded on all sides by roads, with the building being a prominent feature within the locality. The site is located on the edge of the town centre, in an area characterised predominantly by commercial uses bounded to the East by St Georges Way with car park and residential properties beyond. A number of advertisements of varying size, design and method of illumination are displayed on the building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A/2220 – An application for consent to display advertisements comprising of 1 illuminated fascia sign, 1 illuminated frontage sign and menu board conditionally approved June 2000. It was originally proposed to display a sign on the East elevation of the building. However, this was considered to be unacceptable, as it did not relate to the unit occupied by the applicant and was withdrawn.

A/2223 – An application for consent to display advertisements involving 4 illuminated signs was determined in June 2000. A split decision was issued in this respect, approving 3 of the signs, 2 on the West elevation and 1 on the East elevation. The fourth sign on the South elevation was refused on grounds that, by reason of its size and position on the building, would be overbearing and over dominant. An appeal in respect of this refusal was subsequently dismissed in October 2000.

A/2223/B – Advertisement consent granted for illuminated wall mounted sign on south elevation, May 2001 (Staples)

A/2224 – An application for consent to display advertisements comprising of 2 externally illuminated pillar signs and 4 illuminated wall mounted (Cineworld) signs was determined June 2000. A split decision was issued in this respect approving 4 illuminated wall mounted signs. The pillar signs were refused on grounds of clutter. A subsequent appeal in respect of this refusal was allowed November 2000.

A/2229/A – Advertisement consent granted for 2 externally illuminated picture signs on the tower, externally illuminated directional post mounted sign on St Georges frontage, externally illuminated sign on South East elevation, September 2001 (KFC Drive Through)

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought to display advertisements comprising of 5 illuminated signs. 3 will be mounted externally, one immediately above the shop front, one above at a higher level on the West elevation and one on St Georges Way (East) elevation. The remaining 2 signs will be located within the foyer to the multiplex development at the entrance to the store. Plans that accompanied the original submission showed the signs to be internally illuminated. This was considered to be inappropriate for the locality as similar signage on the building is externally illuminated. Following negotiation, revised plans were submitted showing the proposed signs on the exterior of the building by means of strip lighting over.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development boundary and the Town Centre Boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

D6 Advertisements in Defined Settlements

D14 Light Spillage

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways engineer raises no objections

Environment Agency raises no objections

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

No letters of objection received at time of writing this report

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Matters relevant to the determination of an application for consent to display advertisements are highway safety and amenity consideration. The Highway Engineer has raised no objection to this proposal. Therefore determining the factor in considering the application is whether the proposed advertisement would detract from the amenities of the area and nearby residential properties.

The size and design relate well to the building and are significantly smaller than signs approved and displayed for the Staples Store on the same elevation. This is the largest sign on the building measuring 5.5 meters by 2 meters and is illuminated by strip lights above and below the sign. Maplins sign measures 3.8 meters by 1.8 meters representing a smaller scale, therefore having less impact to the surrounding environment. Staples also have an external illuminated sign on the Southern elevation measuring 8 meters by 3 meters, smaller than that originally proposed which was refused by this Authority and dismissed on appeal. KFC Drive Through was also granted Advertisement consent for 5 illuminated signs also approved through the Development Control Committee.

Eastern elevations also contain an internally illuminated Cineworld sign similar in size to the proposed Maplins sign. All of the signs on the site are subject to a condition requiring the illumination to be switched off 15 minutes after the units have closed to the public. In order to maintain a consistent approach, I would recommend that should members be minded to approve the current application the consent should be subject to the same restriction.

The Local Member has expressed concern that the amenity of the residents of Ash Road will be affected by the addition of further illumination. The nearest neighbour along Ash Road is 73 meters away. This distance is considered to be sufficient so as not to cause any loss of amenity. The strip light will also illuminate downwards onto the sign therefore not shinning directly onto properties or contributing to excessive light pollution. It should be noted that St Georges Way is lined by streetlights raising the ambient light levels in the general area. The illumination will also be turned off each night, 15 minutes after closure to the public. Should this application be approved there will only be 3 signs on the East elevation in total and I do not consider that this would lead to a cluttered appearance

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 advertisement might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to advertise in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the right of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above the proposal is believed to satisfy policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D6 (Advertisements in defined settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Standard condition - B01

2	Standard condition - B02

3	Standard condition - B03

4	Standard condition - B04

5	Standard condition - B05

6	Fascia sign - matt finish - B25

The illumination to the signs hereby approved shall be switched off within a period of 15 minutes after the closure to the public of the retail unit to which it refers and shall not be switched on again until the unit next opens to the public for business.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the residents living near the site and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of design) and D6 (Advertisements in defined settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/05371/L P/02122/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns West

Registration Date: 28/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Croft-White

Demolition of rear single storey extension; alterations, 3 storey extension and conversion of building to form a total of 11 flats

Appley Hotel, Appley Rise, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331LE

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved requiring Committee determination.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application the processing of which is 22 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond this prescribed period due to the complex issues involved, with particular reference to the site's location within the Conservation Area and to the attempt to negotiate a better solution.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a former hotel premises comprising 3/4 storey Victorian style building overlooking Ryde Esplanade and Boating Lake, and to north of road junction of Easthill Road, Westhill Road and The Strand.

Premises occupies a prominent position at the eastern end of Ryde Esplanade. Adjoining to the south is a two-storey traditional detached dwelling (Bellair), whilst abutting the eastern boundary is a similar four storey Victorian style building known as Lothian Court.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Premises have been the subject of a number of applications in respect of its use as a hotel, with the only relevant one being for consent granted in September 1988 relating to alterations and extensions to form private living accommodation on the ground floor, dining room and foyer on first floor, four guest rooms on second floor.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for demolition of rear extension and construction of three storey extension on the western side of the building in the former garden area adjacent to the road, with a secondary smaller extension on the eastern side two storeys in height with roof terrace. In detail both the conversion and extensions result in a total of 11 flats - 3 on ground floor (1 one bedroom, 2 two bedroom), 3 on first floor (3 two bedroom), 3 on second floor (3 two bedroom) and 2 on third floor (1 two bedroom, 1 one bedroom).

Applicants indicate main walls to be in natural stone to match existing, with buff/yellow stock facing brick quoins under grey natural slated roof.

Proposal involves a number of modifications within the building and to its external fabric, including removal of windows, relocation of window, insertion of door opening, provision of balconies. Additionally, within the proposed extensions new balconies are indicated and including a roof terrace on the smaller extension on the eastern side of the building.

Proposal continues to indicate use of the existing access and provides for a total of 13 parking spaces, 11 of which relate to the individual flats, with 2 being for visitor spaces.

Proposal also provides for existing tree and hedge screen to be retained along part of the southern boundary, which will assist in providing screening, particularly in respect of the proposed extension. Also proposal indicates retention of existing boundary wall along the eastern boundary, and the frontage boundary wall which makes up the western boundary.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The premises and its curtilage are located within the Ryde Development Envelope boundaries defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The site is also within the St John's Conservation Area.

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing - March 2000 - which refers to reusing buildings and conversions as an important source of additional housing. Also advises that Local Planning Authorities should promote such conversions by taking a more flexible approach to development plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking. The document also emphasises the need for good quality design.

Reference is also made to PPG15 - Planning in the Historic Environment - which emphasises that developers have a duty of care to ensure that proposed developments in conservation areas preserve or enhance those areas.

Relevant Local Plan policies are as follows:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G6 - Areas Liable to Flooding

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

B8 - Alterations and Extensions of Non-listed Buildings in Conservation Areas

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas

H7 - Extensions and Alterations to Existing Properties

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR6 - Cycling and Walking

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

Site is located within Parking Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan, which restricts parking provision to 0 - 50% of parking guidelines.

Site is within an area identified as being subject of tidal flooding in the Environment Agency 1999 Indicative Flood Plains map.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer's comments are awaited.

Environment Agency has no objection, but require the applicant to be made aware that even if the development is above flood level the site is within the flood plain and may have problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flood events.

Application has been considered by the Architects' Panel, whose comments are summarised as follows.

Panel recognise that the building was typical of Victorian buildings in the area and could see no objection to the principle of an extension of the size proposed, as this would still be compatible with the existing development in the area.

The Panel considered it was important to match design details and materials of the building bearing in mind the prominence of the extension, with the extension being read as one with the main building.

Some concern expressed regarding introduction of dormer windows to the main roof slope, although they noted that a dormer window already existed. They did not consider this set a precedent, and should not be followed.

They accepted the principle of roof space being used for living accommodation, which should be treated in a more sensitive way to reflect the existing characteristics of the roof designs.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application subject of a petition with 17 signatures from local residents of Appley Rise, Appley Lane and Westhill Road, with points raised summarised as follows.

· Proposal will have an adverse effect on the character of the Conservation Area.

· Proposal will have an adverse visual effect on the Victorian character of Appley Rise.

· Proposal is contrary to Policy H7 in terms of being excessive in size and scale, of inappropriate design and having an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

Petition is on the understanding that Appley Hotel is not a residential property.

Application has also been subject of three individual letters of objection, one from Easthill Road resident and the other two from the immediate neighbouring properties to the east and south. Points raised are summarised as follows.

· Neighbouring property owner to south seriously concerned regarding overlooking from a number of significant windows within both proposed extension, but particularly concerned regarding the three storey extension to the east, making reference to additional windows, changing status of windows in terms of the rooms they serve, and the roof terrace.

· Extension will represent a major intrusion into the character of a row of unspoilt Victorian Houses in Appley Rise as well as impacting on the surrounding areas.

· Appley Hotel has two major elevations of equal importance and therefore the effect of the extensions on these elevations is considered to be unacceptable.

· Proposal to introduce balconies to the extension would be out of character with Appley Hotel or other buildings in Appley Rise, and would neither preserve nor enhance the area.

· Reference made to the proposal being contrary to policies which seek to protect neighbouring properties from unacceptable loss of amenity, reiterating points raised in the petition.

· Application makes no regard to site's location with the tidal flood plain.

· Proposal has some inaccuracies regarding encroachment along boundaries (this is a civil matter, with the objector recognising this and is taking his own legal advice).

· Property owner immediately to east reiterates points raised above, but in particular makes reference to the introduction of a flatted development with reference to the extensions impinging on the immediate adjoining property, and being overdominant and out of scale with the area generally.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment.

EVALUATION

Members will appreciate that this is a prominent site within a conservation area and therefore the proposal raises a number of important issues.

Principle

Firstly I consider the principle of conversion, and more particularly extensions to this property to create a flatted development, represents acceptable use of the site and will provide a valuable contribution to housing figures. There are a number of examples of large Victorian buildings of this size which have been converted into flats, although none with the level of extension being proposed in this case.

Design

Given the size of the extension proposed, it was clearly important that that extension was designed to be compatible with the existing building and is not overdominant. Also the site's location in a corner location does tend to lend itself to accepting an extension of the size proposed.

The applicant has carefully analysed the architecture of the existing building and has in this case successfully produced a scheme which will contribute to the corner location. The support of the Architects' Panel is indicative of the care which has been taken, and therefore I am satisfied that in terms of design and, more significantly, in mass and height the main extension on the western side is considered to be acceptable.

With regard to the more minor extension on the eastern side, again this has in general been treated carefully; however this has been the subject of some negotiation resulting in its width being reduced by 0.6 of a metre and its height being reduced 1 metre, which I consider has assisted in architectural terms in reducing the impact and increasing the space about and between the existing building and the adjoining Victorian detached property to the east.

It is essential that good quality materials are used, however I consider this can be adequately covered by condition, and in any event the Materials Schedule indicates that applicants are aware of this important consideration. Attention to detail includes provision for dressings around window, use of natural stone and natural slate, all of which will hopefully result in a good quality development.

Impact on Neighbours

The concerns of neighbours are acknowledged and these concerns have been addressed in part by the negotiation process which, as indicated above, has resulted in the reduction in the mass and scale of the eastern extension. Applicants point out that the distances between this relatively small scale extension and adjoining properties are similar to other gaps. I accept that the introduction of flats through three floors will result in some windows overlooking adjoining properties. However, this is very little different to the level of overlooking that would occur from a hotel use of the building. This apart however, the applicants have redesigned the roof terrace to show obscure glazed screening to the side and rear of the terrace, which should protect the privacy of neighbouring properties. I would also suggest a condition requiring the insertion of obscured glazing in the lower half of new sash bedroom window which faces the south. I consider that these steps should enable the proposal to go forward, and whilst I accept the neighbouring property owners may not agree, I am of the view that the Planning Authority have gone as far as they are able to address any possible loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

Current Use of Property

Research suggests that there has been no approval granted in respect of change of use of the property from a hotel to residential. Information has, however, been provided which suggests that the premises has not functioned as a hotel for some years, certainly in excess of four years, which would need to be proved should the applicants go through a Lawful Development Certificate procedure. Also evidence suggests that the hotel provided less than ten lettable bedrooms and therefore there is no impact on Policy T5 which seeks to protect hotel premises of ten lettable bedrooms or more. Whilst failure of the owners of this property to obtain formal Change of Use consent is regrettable, effectively the current application is seeking such a change of use and therefore the applicants do not consider there is a necessity to go through a Lawful Development Certificate procedure at this stage. Should the application be refused, however, the applicants are likely to go through this procedure, which Members will be aware is entirely considered on the basis of evidence provided.

General

The application does not reach sufficient threshold to require affordable housing. Neither does the new build reach the threshold to require transport infrastructure payments. Proposal does however require provision for cycle parking, and this can be covered by condition.

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 of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as detailed in the Evaluation section above, this proposed conversion and extension to provide flatted development is considered to be an acceptable use in principle, in design terms with particular reference to mass and height in relation to the existing building, and that the negotiated reduction in scale and mass of the eastern extension has now reduced any impact on neighbouring properties to a level which would not warrant a refusal, and therefore I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and shall match those used on the existing building, and such materials shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B8 (Alterations and Extensions to Non Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3	Submission of samples - S03

The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 13 parking spaces has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) and Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until provision has been made within the site for a secure and covered parking of a minimum of 11 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained for such use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles to comply with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted to, and agreed with, the Local Planning Authority showing the construction and design of the covered cycle parking provision which shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B8 (Alterations and Extensions to Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to commencement of work a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted in respect of the parking area and any such landscaping scheme shall include for the provision of raised planters to enclose the 11 parking spaces indicated on the plan hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8	All existing boundary walls shall be retained and shall not be removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development, including site clearance, shall commence on the site until all individual trees and the existing row of trees which abut the southern boundary have been protected by fencing along a line to be agreed. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification:

1.2 minimum height chestnut paling to be as 1722 Part 4 standard securely mounted on 1.2 minimum above ground height timber post driven firmly into the ground.

Such fencing of barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

No placement or storage of material

No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals

No placement or storage of excavated soil

No lighting of bonfires

No physical damage to bark or branches

No changes to natural ground drainage in the area

No changes in ground level

No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers

Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged.

Reason: To ensure that the trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of Flat No. 10 the decorative galvanised mild steel screen with obscure glazed panels to the roof terrace as indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be erected and shall be retained as such thereafter, and shall not be removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of Flat No. 4 the lower half of the south facing bedroom 2 window within the new extension shall be permanently fixed non-opening and shall be finished in permanent obscured glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/09667/U P/02069/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 22/10/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr and Mrs L Gustar

Demolition of buildings, outline for residential development

Hosiden Besson, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NL

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application relates to proposals which have been the subject of recent refusals and dismissal on appeal and relates to a particularly contentious site which raise a number of issues all of which require Committee determination.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application the processing of which will have taken 22 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed period due to the need to obtain a consultee assessment of a submitted appraisal report which accompanied the application.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a vacant factory premises and its curtilage located on the southern side of Binstead Hill/Binstead Road. The premises has stood vacant for approximately 7 ½ years.

Site is bounded to the west, east and south by residential developments known as Stonelands Orchard and in part Binstead Lodge Road and Birch Gardens. Abutting the forward western boundary is a detached property known as Kentstone which is a large detached property in a substantial curtilage. Apart from Binstead Garage area is generally characterised by residential development. The existing building itself is well established and in a general poor state of repair.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Site has been subject of a number of approvals granted in relation to its previous industrial use.

Application seeking consent both on current application site and factory premises seeking outline consent for 44 bedroom residential nursing home and 8 bungalows was approved in February 1999. That consent was in outline form and has therefore expired. In December 2001 outline application for residential development in respect of the land forward of the industrial building was refused on the following grounds:

The redevelopment of part of this established industrial site for residential purposes would be contrary to Policy E3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and in that such a proposal would not protect or enhance the employment use of the site and would be likely to add to increased development pressures for further residential development on this site.

The Local Planning Authority has being given insufficient evidence to support a scheme involving mixed use development on this site and in consequence the proposal is contrary to Policy E4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed in June 2002 with the Inspectors reasoning for dismissal summarised as follows:

Residential development on the forward area of the overall site would enclose the factory unit with housing on all four sides and remove most of the existing servicing and parking areas.

Factory unit would be left in a backland location and any service traffic would have to pass immediately adjacent to proposed dwellings thereby making the factory unit unattractive to potential users.

The potential conflict between commercial and domestic traffic on the access drive and space remaining for turning, loading and unloading for large delivery vehicles would be restricted.

Inspector referred to evidence of some demand for smaller low cost starter units for new businesses with the existing building appearing suitable for sub division into smaller units with reference being made to ‘Regeneration of Ryde’ document. It is therefore necessary to ensure retention of car park and servicing area.

No evidence provided that such a use of overall site was feasible.

Inspector refers to other vacant industrial sites being in the main on the eastern side of the town while appeal site is on western side. Inspector considered every possible employment related use for the application site should be fully explored and discounted before redevelopment for other uses is considered in the interest of satisfying local employment needs and reducing cross town commuting.

He concluded that the proposed development would adversely affect the future use of the main employment site and would be in conflict with Policy E3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is an outline application with all matters reserved apart from means of access seeking consent for the principle of residential development on the whole of the curtilage including the factory building and the parking and servicing area to the north of that building. Application has been accompanied by a detailed appraisal the main thrust of which is summarised as follows:

Document covered three options namely:

Market value of freehold interest on basis existing building is converted to provide small lock up industrial units.
Market value of the freehold interest for the mixed development of industrial units and houses.
Market value of the freehold interest for residential development in its entirety.

Report confirms that the building has a gross internal floor area of 2200 m² and has been vacant for nearly 6 years since the previous occupier vacated. Building has evidence of ??? damage.

Existing building erected during 1960’s and has been subject to extensions. Applicant acquired the site some 3 years ago.

With regard to the industrial development option report states the following:

Building has been marketed for a number of years with no buyers forthcoming with report compiler indicating that the building is of a type no longer in demand.

Conversion of building to create a number of starter units not financially viable.

Limited demand for industrial buildings in Ryde and the existing sites such as Nicholson Road being only viable due to various grants and subsidies available.

Reference made to former bakery site in Binstead which has been redeveloped with an attractive scheme of houses and bungalows.

Reference made to the Sherbourne Avenue industrial site being made up of a number of industrial buildings which has received consent for residential development subject to relocation package being agreed.

The mixed residential industrial option is covered as follows:

Reference made to the refusal and dismissal of the previous application which in essence sought a mixed use development therefore applicants have submitted an alternative indicating the residential development within the southern half of the site and two industrial units within the northern half of the site adjacent the existing access.

Sale of houses in this location would subsidise industrial development and relate more readily to the surrounding residential development.

Reference is made to two new developments offering light industrial space in Ryde at Ryde Business Park in Nicholson Road. It is pointed out the schemes are believed to be heavily subsidised.

The third option in respect of entire residential development is justified as follows:

Site is suitable for residential development and there is good demand for housing of all types in the locality.

Local residents favour residential use of the site.

Reference made to Housing Needs Survey and shortage of affordable housing. Also reference made to shortage of brown field to take pressures off green field sites and a need to meet the wider objectives of PPG3.

Reference made to residential consents granted for other sites in Ryde including the former bakery site, Sherbourne Avenue site and recent consents relating to Trucast off Marlborough Road.

Report concludes that:

“Best use of the site is considered to be residential both in financial terms and more importantly to satisfy the views of local residents. In planning terms such development would accord with PPG3 and provide affordable housing in a residential suburb of Ryde. “

Application has also been accompanied by a list of points for consideration prepared by a Planning Consultant which to an extent overlap the issues raised in the appraisal however additional issues are summarised as follows:

Reference made to the Inspectors decision emphasising the need to explore sub division of the factory into smaller units before redevelopment of non-employment uses can be considered.

Reference made to urban capacity study in phasing report for 2002 which shows the need for release currently unidentified land for residential purposes within development envelopes to reach housing needs and there is still a need to release green field sites.

Emphasised the emphasis to be placed on reusing of previously developed land as a preference to green field sites.

Reference made to demand for affordable housing in Ryde.

Site capable of accommodating a range of dwellings with a range of accommodation.

Site has contamination problems with remedial works representing a high cost factor with reference being made to £400,000.

In terms of planning policy considerations he emphasises the following:

Policy E4 not applicable as this proposal is for total redevelopment for housing of this employment site.

The appraisal has indicated alternatives are not viable.

Policy E3 permits the development of employment land where there is an identified need for the proposed use as is the case here; or where the loss of the site would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs, has been illustrated by the recent approval nearby and the proposal is for the whole site. This latter exception normally relates to an acceptable mix of uses being proposed but in this case it has been shown why a mix is not viable.

Unit has been empty for 5-6 years and there does not appear to be any likelihood of it being used again.

PPG3 encourages development of previously developed land.

Latest consultation document from the ODPM – Supporting the delivery of new housing deals with proposed amendments to PPG3. One of these amendments emphasises the need to reallocate employment and other land to housing where that land is no longer needed for such use including redundant industrial or commercial buildings. He recognises that this is a consultation document but considers weight should be given to its content.

Inspector recognises that the proposed development met the criteria in policies relating to general location of development and design but considered that obviously other issues were considered more important and outweighed that view.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national policy documents relate to PPG3 – Housing and PPG4 – Industrial and commercial development and small firms.

Members will be aware of the contents of PPG3 which

Give priority reuse of previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of green field sites.
Encourages mixed use developments.

In terms of PPG3 Members attention is drawn to a consultation document which seeks to change planning policy for reallocating employment and other land to housing. It is suggested in this document that the paragraph covering this issue is to be reinforced as follows:

Applicants for planning permission for development that includes housing should be able to expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of planning proposals which concern land allocated for industrial or commercial use in development plans but which is no longer needed for such a use or redundant industrial or commercial buildings. This is particularly the case where Local Planning Authorities have yet to complete the review referred to in paragraph 42 above. Local Planning Authorities should consider such planning application favourably unless:

Proposal fails to reflect the policies in this PPG particularly those relating to a sites suitability for development and the presumption that previously developed sites (or buildings for reuse or conversion) should be developed before green field sites.
The housing development would undermine the planning for housing strategy set out in RPG or the development plan where this is up to date in particular if it would lead to overprovision of new housing where this will exacerbate or lead to low demand.
It can be demonstrated preferably through an up to date review of employment land that there is a realistic prospect of the allocation being taken up for its stated use in the plan period or that its development for housing would undermine regional and local strategies for economic development and regeneration.

PPG4 dates back to November 1992 and it is my understanding that this document is under review. However the main emphasis of the document is to

Take account of both the locational demands of business and wider environmental objectives.
Emphasises how local authorities can help small firms through the planning system.
Stresses that careful consideration should be given to whether proposals for new development may be incompatible with the existing industrial and commercial activities.

Local Plan Policies

Site unallocated but within the Unitary Development Plan development envelope. Our relevant local plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policy – S2

Other policies as follows:

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G10 – Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses

D1 – Standards of Design

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

E3 – Resist the Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses

E4 – Mixed Uses to Promote Employment Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

Most important policy is E3 which is quoted in its entirety as follows:

“Planning applications which protect or enhance the employment use of existing and allocated employment land and premises will be approved. Applications for the change of use of land or premises to those outside employment use will not be permitted. The only exceptions to this policy will be where:

a) There is an identified need for the proposed use and no other suitable site is available or;

b) Where alternative equivalent floor space suitable for employment purposes can be found in the area without releasing land outside the development envelope boundary for development or;

c) The loss of the site would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs or;

d) The development involves the relocation of a non-conforming use from an unsuitable existing site and;

e) The proposal is for the overall development of the site and involves an acceptable mix of uses.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer comments not received.

The appraisal report submitted with the application has been assessed by the Council’s Estate Surveyor who has also sought independent advice where appropriate. His report essentially questions that the valuations contained in the financial appraisal of the two options namely conversion of existing building and mix of industrial and residential use.

In terms of the conversion of the existing building the Council’s Estate Surveyor disagrees with the refurbishment costs and the proposal yield percentage both of which he considers to be too high with result that he is of the opinion that the site has value in terms of the conversion of the existing building as opposed to the negative value placed upon it by the applicants appraiser.

In terms of the industrial and residential mix scheme again the Estate Surveyor considers the yield percentage is too high as is the demolition/contamination cost figure which is unsubstantiated as is the unsubstantiated profit figure. On the basis of his (Estate Surveyor) gross development value but using the proposed costs provided it would appear that the residential element is not viable however using the figures provided but with a more reasonable profit margin the site would have a value well in excess of that being indicated within the report.

With regard to the residential scheme the Estate Surveyor takes an opposite view to the previous two options and considers that the submitted appraisal under values the site with his (the Estate Surveyor) assessment being in the region of 70% higher.

The Estate Surveyor concludes his assessment as follows:

“Clearly in the current market residential development would be the most profitable use of the site. However, this is not to say that solely industrial or even a mixed use development would not be profitable and therefore should not be ignored. I am not aware of what price the site has previously been marketed. Obviously if this was at an excessive price then it would explain that the lack of interest.

As discussed previously by using alternative yield and profit margins the feasibility of development can alter significantly. I believe the appraisal submitted is geared to suggest that residential development is the only viable option however in my opinion this is not the case.”

Council’s Contaminated Land Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of four letters of objection and one e-mail two being from residents of Birch Gardens two from residents of Stonelands Orchard and one from resident of Brook Edge. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Oppose residential development and would prefer the site to be used as a care home for the elderly or hospice facility.
Concerns that the access is inadequate making reference to the use of Binstead Lodge Road as a rat run when the main Binstead Road is excessively busy.
Area contains wildlife habitat with reference being made to foxes, bats and red squirrels and including various trees on the site all of which would be destroyed if the application was granted.
Area of land much higher than existing properties which adjoin to the east and therefore this could result in flooding to those adjoining properties and also concern expressed regarding the removal of trees and how that could effect adjoining foundations.
Concern that the density, mass and height of any residential development may be excessive and cause loss of light to adjoining properties.
Concern that inclusion of any affordable housing would have a negative effect on adjoining environment.
Objector considers the original decision should be adhered to.
Concern expressed regarding the ability of drainage systems in the area to accommodate discharge from any development on this site and therefore there is a potential for flooding. It is considered that this should be thoroughly assessed by the Environment Agency and Southern Water.
If residential development is to take place one objector considers it should be low density large detached houses as opposed to high density development.
One objector does not object to the principle of housing on the site but considers scale and proximity to existing properties, access and environmental issues need to be considered carefully to avoid unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

One objector recognises the derelict state of the site and particularly the building pointing out that it is an attraction to local children. Also it is pointed out that pest control departments have been called however she considers that the planning application should be refused and that the Council should do everything to make the site safe.

EVALUATION

Members will note that this application represents a further attempt to gain approval for alternative use for the site with, in this case, the applicant seeking 100% residential thus resulting in the loss of any employment use. The application as Members will note is supported with an in depth appraisal and in this regard I would refer to the appeal Inspectors comment that “no evidence has been provided to show that such a use of the overall site would not be feasible”.

The issue therefore in this case is whether or not the appraisal which has accompanied the application provides sufficient evidence to suggest that the planning authority cannot resist the loss of the employment use.

There is no doubt that as time elapses the condition of the building deteriorates on a year by year basis to the degree that viability and practicality of conversion becomes more unlikely.

Secondly recent residential developments have now been completed which result in the site being surrounded on three sides by residential development thus making the residential development of the application site the most logical and possibly the most user friendly.

Thirdly the recent former use of building if continued would almost certainly be a bad neighbour use inappropriate given the close proximity of residential properties. Therefore were the existing buildings repaired then any incoming industrial user would need to ensure that the use fell within any class that could take place in close proximity to residential property.

Whilst the above represents a factual statement of the existing circumstances the fact remains the site represents an important employment site on the western side of Ryde and therefore I would suggest that the Planning Authority should not concede to its loss.

The test therefore has to be whether or not the applicants have addressed in essence the reasons the Inspector dismissed the previous appeal albeit that related to a mixed use development.

Members will note that the Council’s Estate Officer has been critical of detailed issues relating to the appraisal and his conclusion is self explanatory. Significantly he does not agree that the residential use of the site represents the only viable option. Obviously the residential option will accrue maximum benefits in financial terms however this does not represent a reason to accept the case as being but before Members.

Given this assessment I consider Policy E3 still applies and in this case outweighs the policies which encourage best use of brown field sites for residential developments. Proposal is therefore seen to be in conflict with the requirements of Policy E3 with exceptions allowed not being relevant to this case. Sufficient land is available for residential development whereas alternative equivalent employment floor space is not available and therefore the loss of the site to employment use would prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs.

It is accepted that the intensification of residential development around the site would restrict the type of industrial use that could be accommodated on the site however that does not weaken the case for the continued use of this site for industrial purposes. The Class B1 business use covers a number of uses which can take place within a residential area such as office use other than a use with class A2, research and development of products or processes uses or for a light industrial process which would not cause a problem in respect of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke etc. In this regard I make reference to the Inspectors comment that “In order to meet local employment needs and reduce cross town commuting in my opinion every possible employment related use of the appeal site should be fully explored and discounted before redevelopment of other uses is considered.”

I therefore consider that approval for residential on the entire site would undermine the Council’s need to encourage sites which satisfy local employment and reduce the need to commute. I therefore consider that evidence is insufficient to allow a change of use of this land to residential.

Whilst recognising that the appeal dismissal related to essentially a mixed use development Members may consider a more imaginative approach in terms of mixed use with for instance employment and residential use within the same buildings may provide a suitable compromise and would be entirely in accordance with PPG3 which promotes mixed use development. Document advises that “Local authorities should promote developments which combine a mix of land uses including housing either on a site or within individual building… Such an approach would not only enable a continuation of an employment use on the site but would also provide an opportunity to be creative in terms of the scheme itself which could take into account any impact on neighbouring properties and achieve a practical level of parking and servicing on the site. This apart however I consider the current proposal to be unacceptable and 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 the 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 am not satisfied that the evidence which has accompanied this application is sufficient to outweigh the employment policies which seeks to protect employment land in the interest of satisfying local employment needs. The evidence which accompanies the application is considered to be insufficient to justify allowing redevelopment of the site for other uses and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy E3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The residential development of the overall site would be likely to prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs and is therefore contrary to Policy E3 (Resist the Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2	The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicants have fully explored every possible employment related use for the site and therefore proposal is contrary to Policy E3 (Resist the Development of Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/10828/C P/00707/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 09/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Kingcross Ltd

3 storey building to provide 11 flats; formation of vehicular access and parking area

Former Hole in the Wall, Pound Lane, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local member, Mrs B Lawson, at the time of submission.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at the Development Control meeting on 23 March 2004, the application will have taken 28 weeks to determine, the delay in processing due to negotiations in respect of design.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site of approximately 0.06 hectares located on the north-west corner of the junction of Market Street with Pound Lane at Ventnor. The site is presently occupied by a one and a half storey building abutting both Market Street and Pound Lane, a dilapidated and decaying building finished in render under a slate roof.

The site abuts the rear of the Central Hotel located on the corner of Market Street and High Street, lying opposite the Clarendon Press building, which has been the subject of a recent approval for redevelopment, and two storey buildings on the south side of Pound Lane. The site is relatively flat and it abuts the Council car park on its west side which, in turn, is accessed off Pound Lane. Directly to the south-west is a long terrace of three storey flats contained within Saunders House, Victoria House, Albert House, and Hamborough House, a large modern flatted block which fronts Albert Street.

To the east of the site, facing the property from Market Street, is a modern block of public conveniences and, beyond, a terrace of two storey cottages in a slightly elevated position. Market Street rises to the north to its junction with High Street.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline application for a doctor's surgery with flats over in a three storey block was refused in March 1990 on grounds of overdevelopment creating an unsatisfactory environment; loss of amenity and privacy for adjoining properties, and inadequate parking.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Revised plans submitted seek consent for 11 two bedroom flats, each of approximately 46 square metres, on three floors with an access beneath the building servicing a car parking area at the rear (north) where eight car parking spaces are shown.

The revised scheme comprises a three storey building essentially in two elements but incorporating "tower" features at either end of the front elevation onto Pound Lane, with a similar but lesser feature almost central in the front elevation, adjoining the access to the rear car park area. Proposed to be constructed in facing bricks with render features and feature window heads and lintels, with reconstituted stone sills to the fenestration. It is proposed to pave the area in front of the building up to the rear of the highway and erect 1.8 metre high wall along the remaining part of the Market Street frontage.

It is understood that there is a disputed right of access from the north boundary to the eastern boundary and on to Market Street. Although disputed by the applicants, the scheme incorporates the ability to utilise this access route by incorporating a gate in the frontage to Market Street, and two car parking spaces have been omitted from the area at the rear to facilitate this alleged right of way.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 - Housing - refers. PPG6, regarding Town Centres and Retail Development; PPG15 - Planning in the Historic Environment also replies.

UDP Insert R shows site to be within designated Development Envelope; within designated Conservation Area but outside town centre boundary.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer offers no adverse comments subject to adequate safeguards regarding transmission of noise between dwellings.

South Water Services acknowledge that the existing combined sewage system indicates that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate any additional flows but valve flow could be accommodated if an equivalent surface water flow was to be removed from the combined sewage system.

Highways Engineer points out that there are no footways in either Pound Lane or Market Street suggesting a 1.7m provision along the Pound Lane frontage. The 11 flats are shown to be served by only 10 spaces and one additional is preferred. There is insufficient clearance beneath arch for refuse and fire vehicles, and that a bin store is needed.

Comments on revised plans to follow.

TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

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

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of:

· unstable land and damage to property caused by development;

· inadequate geotechnic investigations;

· inadequate drainage in terms of foul drainage and stormwater disposal;

· inadequate water supply;

· inappropriate addition of pavement, out of character with the area, encouraging more traffic;

· three storeys not appropriate, two storey more in keeping;

· inappropriate detailing;

· inadequate parking;

· adverse effect on adjoining property.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has commented pointing out that the area has suffered from various crimes over the years and some security issues need attention, including the increase in boundary wall height, access should be 'gated', good lighting to the underpass entrance, phone entry systems to flat entrances..

EVALUATION

This full application seeks consent for the erection of a block of 11 flats on a site situated within the town centre, clearly within the Development Envelope, in an area of mixed uses including much residential shopping uses but outside the area designated as Town Centre in the UDP. A residential use of this site is appropriate, bearing in mind the surrounding uses and the allocations, and is within a very short distance and has an intimate relationship with the development on the Clarendon Press building, directly opposite on the corner of the crossroads of Market Street and Pound Lane.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle; traffic related issues, the density and form the proposed development takes on the effect of the development in design and visual impact on the Conservation Area, and any effects on adjoining properties.

In terms of policy and principle, the redevelopment of this former public house for residential purposes is considered appropriate. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses including residential, but residential development is also to be encouraged in town centre areas to help revitalise such areas.

In terms of density and form, the application seeks consent for a lesser density than that approved on the Clarendon Press site recently, a slightly larger sized site but fewer dwellings. Both developments incorporate three storey elements. In terms of its form, the proposal is similar to that recently approved, and despite the fact that some of the adjoining development is only two storey height, three storey in this location is, I believe, necessary in order to achieve the higher density whilst also blending with existing development.

Access is gained via an access beneath the first and second floors, leading to a parking area for eight vehicles, as shown on the submitted plan. Ideally one car parking space per unit would be preferred, but the site is located within Zone 3 of the Established Parking Policy which indicates that 0 - 75% of normal provision would be appropriate. Eight spaces for 11 flats computes at 73% which, bearing in mind two bedroomed flats are proposed, equates to 36% and is therefore in line with policy.

It is understood that there is a claim by a third party of a right of way across the site, leading from the northern boundary to the eastern boundary and thence on to Market Street. The submitted plan reflects but does not accept this claim, and if it is not established, a further two car parking spaces could be produced, resulting in an almost one for one car parking provision.

As with the Clarendon Press site, additional details supplied with the application indicate that a capacity check on the drains has been carried out and, subject to certain safeguards, the site can be adequately drained.

Again, as with the Clarendon Press site, a ground condition survey has been undertaken by Consulting Engineers which concludes that designed foundations would need to be installed but that such foundations would need to include piling or the compaction of the ground by densifying the upper layers to some considerable depth.

In terms of the design, negotiations have taken place over a considerable period with the applicants and a design has now been achieved which not only reflects the character and form of the approved scheme on the Clarendon Press building but which reflects the character of this part of the Conservation Area. Choice of materials will be crucial and so long as good quality materials are used, including the use of sash windows, I consider the result will be complementary to this part of the area.

In terms of effect on adjoining properties, the site is lower lying and backs on to the rears of properties fronting High Street, properties which mostly have lower levels in commercial use. The rear elevation of the building contains windows serving living room/dining rooms, but the distance between the nearest building, the Central Hotel, is approximately 20 metres.

In summary, it is felt that the proposed development, as revised, is acceptable and positively enhances the Conservation Area, and although the proposals do not result in a development of one space per flat, the parking provision is within the acceptable range applicable to Zone 3. As with the Clarendon Press site, this site forms part of the continuing process of redevelopment and regeneration of this central area, which will assist in raising the standard of the built environment in this location.

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 of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is consistent with UDP policy and National Planning Guidance regarding housing and matters relating to conservation and the historic environment. It is felt that the redevelopment of the site proposed would form the next step in a comprehensive redevelopment of this central area which will, in the long term, rejuvenate the town centre in a style which is consistent with the historic fabric of Ventnor.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Submission of samples - S03

The area between the building and the back of the footway/kerb shall be surfaced in accordance with a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

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

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until 8 car spaces have been provided within the site, as shown on the plan hereby approved. These spaces shall be marked, surfaced and drained in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	The windows and doors, fascia and bargeboards included in this development shall be constructed in timber in accordance with the approved drawings. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority:

a) a desktop study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with National Guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos 2 & 3 and BS10175:2001; and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desktop study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice, and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant, including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

The construction of building shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation of all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that, where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part 11A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of use of the building hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/13058/D P/00377/04 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown South

Registration Date: 20/02/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Mr E W Davies

Demolition of building; construction of 11 flats in a 7 storey building with parking on ground floor level; vehicular access (Revised Scheme)

18 Pier Street, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368JU

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If determined at this meeting this application will have been determined in 5 weeks.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

An almost square shaped site of 0.04 hectares, formerly a hotel, bar and residential accommodation located on The Esplanade at Sandown at the bottom of Pier Street, just to the south of Sandown Pier. The site was formerly known as Trubshaws and comprises a partially derelict building adjoining the north side of “Zanies”.

Existing building covers virtually 100% of the site and is flanked by buildings of 2, 3 and 4 storeys and abuts a cliff face on its north western side. Both of the adjoining buildings are flat roofed but beyond, towards the south west is Napoleons Landing with blocks which vary between 4 and 10 storeys, increasing in height to the south.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Full planning permission was granted for the demolition of the building and erection of 5 storey block of 8 flats, including vehicular access and covered parking in December 2002. More recently an application for 11 flats in a 7 storey building with parking on ground floor was considered at Development Control Committee first on 16 December 2003, when the decision was deferred for further negotiations with the applicant regarding scale, height and mass of the building, design, the possibility of carrying out a comprehensive redevelopment including the land immediately adjoining to the south west and the inclusion of at least an element of commercial or tourism use within the development.

The applicant was advised of the Committee’s preferences regarding development of this site but responded by requesting the application to be considered in its submitted form. The application was duly refused on 20 January 2004 for the following reason.

“Development of this site with a 7 storey block, would be intrusive and over bearing by reason of its scale, mass, design and height, out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development, particularly to the north east, in the immediate vicinity, thereby failing to enhance and adversely affecting the quality of the built environment contrary to Strategic Policy S6 and local Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.”

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The current scheme again seeks consent for the demolition of the building; for the construction of 11 flats in a 7 storey building with parking on ground floor level but the design has been further revised, essentially changing the front elevation and the top floor layout.

The top floor has been set back from the front of its balcony by approximately 2.8 metres whereas, previously, it was set back approximately 1.2 metres, thus the top floor has been set back approximately 1.6 metres from the face of its original. It addition, the balconies have been reformed, the ends splayed at 45 degrees whereas, previously, they were inset in the central recess instead of forming a feature across the whole width of the front elevation. Again the roof is intended to be slightly curved with its ‘gable’ fronting the road. The materials are intended again to be a mix of buff brickwork, cream rendering with Portland stone heads and band courses as features.

This further revised scheme for redevelopment again seeks planning permission for 11 flats in a 7 storey block in a similar form to that previously considered and refused. The plans are going through the building to comprise car parking on ground floor in the form of 4 spaces accessed directly off Pier Street with a further 5 parking spaces served by a turntable towards the rear of the ground floor of the building. In addition, the ground floor incorporates pedestrian access in the south end of the frontage leading to a stair well and lift area.

Plans show the building again to comprise 2 flats per floor with the exception of the 6^th floor which contains a single flat. Each flat contains living room, kitchen, bathroom and either 2 or 3 bedrooms, some of the lower floors have bedrooms which are lit by a light well from roof level, providing light and ventilation to some rooms which would otherwise by internal. Top floor contains a balcony on 3 sides and contains a larger flat containing 3 bedrooms one of which has a dressing room and en-suite and substantial dining room/kitchen and living room. A street scene submitted with the application shows The Esplanade and the proposed buildings relationship to the Bayshore Hotel immediately adjoining to the north, the disused nightclub (Zanies) and the development known as Napoleons Landing. The street scene indicates an elevation with some licence. The top floor is diminished in its appearance it an attempt to give the true impression of what would be visible from The Esplanade, the roof being partially hidden by the top floors balcony/parapet.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope; outside but adjoining the hotel policy area (T4).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None at the time of writing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at the time of writing.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received; it is not anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Members will appreciate the history of this site, especially the most recent planning application which was refused in January and the reason for its rejection which refers solely to visual intrusion by reason of scale, mass, design and height concluding that the development would be prejudicial to the prevailing pattern of development and the adverse effects on the built environment contrary to Strategic Policy S6 and Local Policy D1.

The property, formerly known as Trubshaws, has been used most recently as a pub and restaurant but in the last few years has remained unused although some refurbishment work had been carried out. The site is outside the T4 policy area, a fact acknowledged by the permission for a 5 storey block of 8 flats in December 2002. The 5 storey block of 8 flats and the fact that the last application was refused solely on ‘appearance and design’ clearly accepts that a solely residential use on this site is appropriate.

The details in the layouts are essentially the same as submitted before, with the exception of the 6^th floor which is set back thus reducing its visual impact from The Esplanade and therefore, as before, the determining factor is considered to be design, visual impact and perhaps more specifically, the height of the building and the effect of this development in context with neighbouring properties.

The height of the building has been increased by two floors over that which was approved previously in December 2002. It includes an additional 3 flats and therefore the density has also been increased but it is a density which is compatible with Napoleons Landing. Napoleons Landing reaches 10 floors at its highest point, stepping down towards Zanies, a redevelopment of which has been approved for the height compatible with the northern block of Napoleons Landing. The building is the same as that refused in January.

The proposal on the application site would increase the height to 7 storeys and, in my view, has a balancing effect bearing in mind the height of Napoleons Landing. It is understood that the redevelopment of Zanies was limited in overall height to the existence of a covenant, a restriction apparently which does not apply to the application site. The height of land at the rear of Napoleons Landing is considerably higher and the cliff diminishes to a point commensurate with the pier. Bearing in mind the variety of the heights of the blocks of Napoleons Landing, I do not consider this block would be out of keeping.

The Architects Panel considered the previous scheme and felt that its style reflected that of Napoleons Landing more closely than the scheme approved before that. At the time of writing this report, the Architects Panel have not had the opportunity to look at this revised scheme but it is my view that the changes which have occurred, namely the emphasised balcony features, gives a more horizontal emphasis of the building rather than one which emphasised its height previously.

Members were advised previously that the original submission which gained consent in December 2002 included a geological report of the replacement of the building with another in relation to its stability. The report concluded that, subject to details of the scheme the concerns of any possible ground problems could be overcome by a proper study being carried out and an appropriate scheme being adopted.

At this point it should be remembered that, one of the applicants reasons for justifying the additional storeys of development and the additional 3 flats, is the ability of the scheme to afford a new retaining wall to stabilise the cliff and prevent further possibility of damage. Members were previously advised that a similar provision needed to be made at the rear of Napoleons Landing in order to ensure cliff stabilisation in connection with that development. The matter of land stability did not form part of any reason for refusal and consequently would not form any reason for resistance at this stage.

To return to the determining factors which are considered to be scale, mass, height and design, I remain of the opinion that the evolution of the design of this building still results in a building which is of acceptable appearance in The Esplanade scene. Despite the additional 2 floors over what was previously approved, the additional two floors gives the appearance of a single floor since the impact of the top floor results in the diminution of that top floor which will barely be visible from The Esplanade. In my view the changes to the front elevation including the addition of the balconies across the full face of the façade gives a more horizontal emphasis to the building rather than exaggerating the vertical elements previously.

It is accepted that the Architects Panel, in considering the proposal previously, felt that the scheme was one storey too high but that the submitted design was an improvement on that which gained planning permission in December 2002. I believe that the scheme should be determined in the wider context of the whole of The Esplanade to the south of the pier rather than merely comparing the development which immediately adjoins. It is not clear yet what development may occur on the site of ‘Zanies’ which has only an outline permission. If the impasse regarding the covenant on Zanies were to be resolved on the height of that redevelopment could well be significantly higher than that which has presently gained an outline permission.

Irrespective of that development, I remain of the opinion that the mass of the proposed structure reflects and balances the existence of Napoleons Landing.

In summary despite the fact that my recommendation in the last application was for approval and that I believe the design of the building has been improved, I remain of the opinion that the building would form an acceptable feature in The Esplanade despite the contrast in height with the Bayshore Hotel and the proposed building on Zanies. The top floor has been diminished in its perceived height by setting its front wall well back from the front of the building. This will reduce the impact to a certain degree which may lay Members fear sufficiently to grant planning permission.

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 of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in the evaluation section above redevelopment of the site with a 7 storey block of 11 flats is considered appropriate and complimentary development and consistent with Policies D1, D2, H1, H5 and H6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The access and crossing of the highway and footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use.

Footway construction (strengthening) for light vehicles:

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150 mm.

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150 mm, properly compacted with the float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The access shall not be brought into use until facilities are provided within the curtilage of the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with the approved plans. This facility shall thereafter always be kept available for such use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

5	The vehicle turntable hereby approved shall be kept in operational order at all times in line with the manufacturers guidelines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure and covered parking of a minimum of 11 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield Hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling & Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the drawing number 1-01-10 Revision A attached for cars to be parked.

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8	Garage doors - K24

No garage doors or shutters shall be installed in front of spaces 1 - 4 without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any such shutters or doors to be erected shall be of the roller shutter type to ensure that no projection over the public highway results.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10	Glass blocks/glazing to be installed in the rear (north west) elevation of the building shall be of obscured glass. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/20677/M P/00022/04 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 16/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Steele

Construction of 6 buildings to form a clubhouse, office accommodation, a hangar and 3 industrial units; formation of vehicular access

land at Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown, PO36

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the 23 March meeting, will have taken ten weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the north side of the A3056 at Scotchells Brook, is accessed off Airport Road and is located within an area of relatively flat and open landscape adjoining the south side of the airport runway.

There are presently several buildings in this airport complex, comprising existing hangars, control tower and some temporary structures.

The area to the north and west of Scotchells Brooks is open, relatively flat terrain on the outskirts of Lake. Access to the site is over Airport Road to a point a few metres west of Scotchells Brook. To the south of the airport buildings there is a group of buildings used for storage, a compound and two dwellings.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Many planning applications relating to the whole of the airfield, dating back to December 1948. Relevant applications relating to the complex of buildings on the southern side of the airfield (relative to this application) include temporary consents, subsequently renewed, since 1980 for public conveniences and restaurant, and permanent permissions for underground fuel tank and ancillary stores, hangars, offices and control tower. Probably the most important of these includes the outline for a hangar for storage, maintenance and repair of aircraft and for the construction and manufacture of aircraft and allied use with offices and toilet accommodation, approved in June 1984, reserve matters for which were approved in September 1984. This development included the construction of an access road passing around the eastern extent of the site. The access road has been installed but not completed, and has consequently become partially overgrown.

In February 1991 outline planning permission was granted for the use of land adjacent to the site for industrial purposes.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

A comprehensive development planned for the erection of new canteen and restaurant building, administration block with units for employment purposes (B1).

Plans show the proposed clubhouse and restaurant to be located immediately adjoining the south-west side of the control tower and the office between that building the access road, both running parallel to the runway. Both buildings are shown to be two storeys in height finished in timber cladding under a natural slate roof, the office building shown to have an open plan office space on ground floor with individual offices on first floor. Overall dimensions of plan to be 25 metres by 10 metres.

The clubhouse/restaurant, with a footprint of 10 metres by 40 metres, is mostly two storeys but with two single storey elements, shown to provide, on ground floor, a conference room, kitchen, toilets and bar area and, on first floor, restaurant and bar area together with toilets and two en-suite bedrooms.

The office building is shown to produce approximately 500 square metres of office space, open plan on ground floor with the exception of the stairwell and toilets, and nine individual offices on the first floor and a small kitchen to service those offices on the first floor.

The proposed industrial units, shown to be located on the west side of the access road, although in three separate buildings of two storeys in height, show the units would produce seven units, floor area varying from 540 square metres to 414 square metres. The buildings are shown to be steel framed and clad in dark green profile cladding under a similar roof sheeting of unspecified colour.

In support of the application, a presentation document states that the airfield has been in operation for approximately 70 years and has recently been purchased by the applicant. It comprises approximately 26.7 hectares and has operated for many years as a recreational airfield, but also includes air related developments which have come and gone over the years. It states that the airfield presently comprises approximately 1675 square metres of hangar space, airport tower, offices, canteen and storage, and draws attention to the existence, on the northern side of the airfield, of the specialist flying school, a joinery business, other electronics businesses and other light industrial approximately totalling 2750 square metres.

The report reiterates planning history as detailed above.

The presentation sets out a total plan for the airport detailing all sorts of work, some of which does not require planning permission as it comprises essentially maintenance, and stating that the period over which the work will take place is likely to be between 3 and 5 years, and that the work commenced in 2003. It includes a construction of an infill hangar to accommodate emergency vehicles; the construction of two aviation related hangar units of approximately 670 and 335 square metres, and totalling approximately 3250 square metres of aviation space and employment use. The report suggests this is urgent and needs to be ready for occupation in early Spring.

The report goes on to include repairs to the drainage system, improvements of concrete hardstand areas, the construction of a new reception, canteen and restaurant area facility, bar facility, members' room and toilets, and including some bed and breakfast accommodation. The report points out the shortcomings of the existing canteen facilities.

It is proposed to improve footpath signage, the provision of a bus stop and the creation of a specialist conference room for meetings for local businessmen and those who wish to fly in from different locations to hold such a meeting. Phase Two is suggested to commence in late 2004 and to be completed in late 2005 or early 2006, and to include the completion of the internal access road, improving the car parking and signage, construction of the B1 units, the construction of the new offices and reception, which will be used for accommodation for the general manager, secretary, administration staff and staff facilities but, in addition, this space will allow for specialist serviced office units for small businesses from approximately 15 square metres each. Phase Two also includes the improvement of a visibility line from the airport onto the Newport Road "if possible".

The report compares the airport to others in the south such as Goodwood, Rochester, Shoreham and Old Sarum, where provision of B1 industrial and employment units, conference facilities, meeting rooms and catering have been installed. The report details the fact that, over the last five years, the number of flights in and out of the airfield has been increasing steadily and last year a total of 4,500 movements occurred with approximately 50,000 ground based visitors a year. The agents argue that better facilities and an improvement of the surface of the airfield could increase the numbers by approximately 30% and result in improved day recreational flying, and cite examples of the Microlite Rally and Tiger Moth Fly In last year which attracted a total of approximately 4,000 visitors.

The new visitor facilities, restaurant and canteen, has seating for up to 80 persons and will functions will take place, and a membership room to be provided for special events to enable people to promote their own businesses. The two bed and breakfast facilities are available in the main reception block for people who need an overnight stay, with a possible view to expansion over a period of time. Agents feel that the visitor levels, including specialist weekends, to move to between 60 and 80,000 per annum.

Agents point out that construction of air related space can only attract £32-37 per square metre, whereas the other employment uses could attract a rental level of £54-59 per square metre, which will create a subsidy for the airfield, and they argue that the provision of the light industrial units is the only way of creating sufficient revenue to subsidise the provision of the aviation uses proposed.

In conclusion the report cites the UDP that the provision of air transport can provide a potential contribution to the tourist recreational development of the Island, providing a boost to the economy and tourism.

DEVELOPMENT PLANS/POLICY

The site is shown on the Unitary Development Plan to be designated as an airport, with specific reference to Policy TR19 which states:

"The Council will support and encourage the retention and improvement of:

a) Sandown Airport for leisure flying activities;

b) Bembridge Airport for commercial air services and leisure flying."

Planning applications for the improvement of facilities will be approved only where there is no significant adverse effects upon the environment, in particular, noise which may affect neighbouring properties.

The site is within the countryside but is not shown to be an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or subject to any other conservation policy.

Strategic Policies S4, which seeks to protect the countryside from appropriate development, Policy S5, which seeks to support proposals which are for the overall benefit of the Island, are supported as long as they enhance the economic social or environmental considerations; Policy S6 expects all development to be of a high standard.

Policy C1 seeks to protect the landscape character, and Policy T1 seeks to promote tourism on the Island.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineers have initially recommended refusal on grounds of inadequate access due to inadequate width, construction, visibility and gradient. Negotiations are continuing to attempt to overcome the problems and updated observations from the Engineers will be reported.

Environmental Health Officer raises concerns over potential impacts of noise on adjoining properties. Adverse effects from the clubhouse kitchen and hangars could be controlled by condition limiting noise emissions, hours of use etc. He points out that the application does not mention the anticipated numbers of aircraft and the likely increase in numbers of flights.

Ecology Officer queries loss of trees and the possibility of carrying out replacement planting to mitigate any losses.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at the time of writing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at the time of writing.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment, but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

Policy TR19 of the UDP states the Council's support and encouragement for the retention and improvement of Sandown Airport for leisure flying activities and that Planning Applications for such improvement of facilities will be approved only where there is no significant adverse effect upon the environment, in particular noise, which may affect neighbouring properties.

Airports are noisy and any increase in flights to and from the airfield will inevitably have an impact if only due to frequency of take offs and landings. The Council's pledged support for the airport must acknowledge the increase in popularity and frequency of use as a factor of the Airport's success. There is, therefore, felt to be no principle objection to the improvements to the Airport.

The airfield has been in existence since the 1930s and clearly there is no restriction on the number of flights permissible. Previous approvals on the site have limited the use of buildings to the construction, repair, manufacture and storage of aircraft only.

In essence this application seeks permission to carry out significant construction at the airport complex on the southern side of the runway, comprising two main categories of buildings: those which are directly related to the airfield and the running of the airport, and secondly those which are not aircraft related. In essence the agents contend that the non aircraft related buildings, those light industrial buildings proposed to be sited to the east of the complex, are an enabling development capable of producing an income to the airfield to enable the airfield development to proceed.

Clearly this is an area where aircraft related developments which enable the airport to continue operation as a recreational and leisure flying airport are, in principle, supported. Some of the uses proposed have been at the airport in a temporary form for many years and facilities such as the canteen, toilets, offices in connection with the airfield, are uses which are essential to the proper running of a successful airfield. Parts of the office building are also intended to be used for uses which are not directly connected with the airfield to enable small firms to establish or grow, thus producing an income which can be ploughed into the air related activities.

The use of some of the buildings as non-aircraft related industrial use and office use may be acceptable in the short term to 'enable' the development by financing the scheme. Temporary use of the buildings for the first 5 years would be a reasonable maximum period with the buildings reverting to aircraft related industrial after that period.

The Agent requests the period for non aircraft related use be extended to 10 years with the added caveat that if an aircraft related user cannot be found within 6 months after that period, the units could then become solely Light Industrial use.

Temporary uses are almost always limited to a maximum period of 5 years and Governmental advice is that if a longer period is contemplated then a permanent permission should be given. This site is outside the development envelope and therefore the establishment of new non air related development would be contrary to policy and would be likely to be refused. The only justification for accepting the development in principle would be that it is aircraft related and forms an enabling role. The development, of course, has an employment implication but the industrial and office elements are speculative at this stage and it should be noted that the same provision could be made on an allocated employment site of which there are some in the locality.

In terms of design and materials, the light industrial units are of an appearance which is consistent with hangarage, and providing correct choices of materials and colours are made, the buildings form a relatively tight group which follows the current form and layout of the complex of buildings.

The clubhouse and offices buildings are proposed to be clad in timber but no details of colour of finish have been supplied, but these are of two storey height which, in this open landscape, would be highly visible, especially if light colours are employed.

Turning to access, the increased use of the access point to the A3056 has always featured in any uses which have been proposed at the airfield, and the current proposal, in recognition of this difficulty, proposes an alteration to the vehicular access enabling an increased visibility and a greater radius whilst entering the site from the westerly direction. This will entail the removal of some hedgerow and some small trees, but it is felt that if the increased use of the access is found to be an acceptable development, the necessary alterations proposed will enhance the safety of the junction for more than just the current applicant and the loss of trees and hedgerow can be overcome by replanting. Continuing negotiation regarding the shortcomings of the access may overcome those problems and if achieved will be subject to appropriate condition.

Turning to the effect of the development in the landscape, there are significant volumes of building mass which are proposed in an open landscape which has panoramic views and which consequently is easily visible from surrounding areas. Development at the airport will be inevitable if the airport is to survive and thrive, and bearing in mind the grouping, the fact that the light industrial buildings occupy a site which has hitherto been granted planning permission for development, I do not consider this increase in buildings within the group will be sufficient to withhold permission. In returning to the matter of light industrial use, as an enabling development it is understood that such premises will be likely to generate income, but this will only happen if the buildings are retained in the same ownership rather than sold. This will also mean that those buildings which are suitable for aircraft related activities can remain for such future use if and when the activities at the airfield require further hangars, and it is accordingly felt that conditions need to be applied to ensure that the light industrial buildings are retained in one ownership with the airport complex and that their use for light industrial purposes is temporary only, with reversion to aircraft related industry or storage within a period of five years.

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 of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, the development of the site as proposed for offices, canteen, restaurant and bar facilities, for toilets, for aircraft hangars and light industrial development is consistent with Policy TR17 which encourages the use of the airport for leisure flying activities and is therefore considered consistent with the objectives of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Submission of samples - S03

3	Colour treatment to be agreed - S22

4	Details of hard and soft landscaping - M10

None of the buildings hereby approved shall be brought into use until the highway improvements as described in the submitted plans have been carried out and completed in accordance with a full specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The clubhouse and restaurant hereby approved shall be used as a clubhouse and restaurant in connection with the use of the existing buildings as part of the airport facilities. It shall be used only whilst the airport is open and operational and its use as a clubhouse and restaurant shall be discontinued permanently in the event that the airfield closes.

Reason: The site is in an area where such facilities would not normally be granted in accordance with Policy G1 and G5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7	Restriction of use to a cafe/restaurant - C18

The bed and breakfast accommodation hereby approved shall be used only in connection with the clubhouse as guest accommodation during the time the clubhouse and airfield are operational. It shall not be occupied by any person, group of persons or family for a period in excess of 7 days in any 3 month period without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The site lies in an area where residential accommodation would not normally be permitted and in accordance with Policies G1 and G5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The offices hereby approved shall be used for a purpose falling within Class B1(A) of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose within that class, nor any use falling within Class B8 of that Order.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The light industrial units situated to the east of the site annotated Unit 1, Unit 2 and Unit 3 shall be used for air related industrial use only except for the first 5 years following completion of the building, a period within which it may be used for B1(B) light industrial use, after which use it must revert to air related industrial use unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is first obtained.

Reason: The site is in an area where uses unrelated to the use of the airport would not normally be approved and in accordance with Policies S1, G1, G2 and E6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The hangar hereby approved shall be used only for aircraft related industrial purposes unless consent is first obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: The site is in an area where uses unrelated to the use of the airport would not normally be approved and in accordance with Policies S1, G1, G2 and E6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25373/A P/01060/03 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 19/09/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Hopkins

Outline for residential development of 12 dwellings & access road, (revised scheme)

land rear of 5-15 Pallance Road with access off, Selman Gardens, Cowes, PO31

Members will recall that this application was considered and deferred at the meeting held on 9 January 2004, with that decision following a site inspection by Members. Reason for deferral related to concerns regarding provision of a footpath, delivery of building materials and any future development of the surrounding area. Officers were instructed to carry out further negotiations.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which has proved particularly contentious, raising a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application which has now gone beyond the thirteen week BVPI target figure following Committee's decision to carry out a site inspection and following deferral at that site inspection for further negotiation, and therefore the application will have taken 27 weeks to determine.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an amalgamation of rear areas of back gardens to five properties numbers 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Pallance Road on the south eastern side of Pallance Road. The site's south eastern boundary forms the rear boundary to those properties with that boundary also abutting in part the access to and the curtilage of property no. 16 Nodes Road which is a detached property set in a backland situation. The remaining part of the south eastern boundary abuts the curtilage of a semi-detached single storey dwelling no. 8 Selman Gardens with the road Selman Gardens being open-ended terminating on the south eastern boundary of the site. The south eastern boundary in the form of a mixture of hedging and fencing. The site contains trees within its south eastern corner, some conifers within the party boundary between 15 and 11 Pallance Road. There is an existing substantial sycamore tree abutting but overhanging the site within the curtilage of no. 16 Nodes Road. The cul-de-sac Selman Gardens forms part of the Cranleigh Gardens development which has a junction off Nodes Road to the northeast.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This site was subject of an outline application for fourteen dwellings with access road submitted in January 2003. The application raised a number of important issues relating to density, failure to provide diversity of dwelling types, smallness of plot sizes in the case of three plots and inadequate information in respect of drainage. Application withdrawn in March 2003.

The Cranleigh Gardens development was granted consent in June 1990 and comprises 37 bungalows with garages with access road / estate roads. For information this site was subject of an appeal following a refusal of an application for forty dwellings dismissed in June 1989.

Significantly, however, the Inspector at that time considered that

"A facility should be provided for the extension of the new road system into adjoining backland area to the northwest ...."

was an important consideration. Consequently when the revised application of the lesser density was approved it indicated the open-ended cul-de-sac to achieve the above, now known as Selman Gardens.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks outline consent to develop the land to the northwest of Selman Gardens using the cul-de-sac for access purposes. Application seeks access and siting to be considered at the same time with the submitted plan indicating a layout of a total of twelve dwellings (three single storey and nine two storey dwellings) with the first floor accommodation being within the roofspace i.e. in the form of chalet bungalow style dwellings.

Proposal consists of six semi-detached, three detached, and three terraced dwellings.

Access is in the form of a kerbed access extension of Selman Gardens with a cul-de-sac head in the north eastern area of the overall site (rear of properties 5 and 7 Pallance Road). Layout indicates the loss of the conifer trees and a group of trees in the south western corner.

Each unit is provided with a single parking space either set within the curtilage of individual plots, or, in the case of two plots (5 and 6), in the form of a lay-by to run parallel to the road. Proposal also provides for a private access drive off the new access road to serve no. 15 Pallance Road with further allowance for vehicular access to nos. 5 and 7 Pallance Road off the proposed cul-de-sac head. Dwellings on plots 8 and 9 being those closest to the existing sycamore tree as previously mentioned are a minimum distance of approximately four metres off the crown edge of that tree. Proposal also provides for elements of new tree and hedge planting with there being a relatively small area of open space forming part of the cul-de-sac head within the north western and south eastern area.

In terms of accommodation, proposal provides for eight two bedroom units, two one bedroom units and two three bedroom units.

Following negotiations applicants have considered the various issues, which has resulted in the submission of a further revised plan which now indicates details of the carriageway widths on the existing length to Selman Gardens, which now shows the carriageway width of 4.8 metres, widening to 5.65 metres where it abuts the boundary to the application site. Applicants have further considered traffic calming measures and point out that a pinch point has been included, thereby enhancing the traffic calming feature at a point where the additional traffic will be entering the existing Selman Gardens. The proposal has also omitted the private access drives to the rear gardens in Pallance Road in respect of No. 15, No. 11 and No. 5 Pallance Road, although the revised plan continues to indicate a double gated entrance into the rear garden of No. 7 Pallance Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

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

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

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

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Reference is made to Design Bulletin 32, Residential Roads and Footpaths Layout Consideration, and its companion guide, Places, Streets and Movements.

Both documents recognise that the planning of roads and footpaths has a major impact on the character and quality and safety of residential areas. The documents encourage a sensible balance to be struck between planning, housing and highway considerations, particularly in respect of new residential developments. The Companion Guide, Places, Streets and Movements, emphasises that there should be a flexible interpretation of Design Bulletin 32 involving more responsiveness to site settings in the layout of new development to achieve a better balance between highway requirements and other factors, and refers to detailed design of roads, footpaths and cycle routes to avoid dominance by the car, and moving away from overly prescriptive standards.

As a general guide, document suggests that shared surface roads may normally serve up to around 25 dwellings in a cul-de-sac and should include change in alignment to restrain driving speeds to well below 20 miles per hour. Latter document suggests carriageway widths of 4.8 metres for roads serving 25-50 units, with that carriageway width reducing to 4.1 metres for roads serving up to around 25 units. Documents also encourage changes in surface materials and colours as a complementary measure to help restrain vehicle speeds. Such surface materials should be selected to suit both pedestrians and vehicular traffic in places where joint use is intended.

Document also refers to safety issues, with studies of accident records being carried out. Study suggests that shared surfaces are not inherently unsafe.

Local Plan Policies

Site situated within development envelope boundary for Northwood as defined in the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant local plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

D3 - Landscaping.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

L10 - Open Spaces in Housing Development.

Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey which identifies among other needs a demand for two and three bedroom homes.

The site is located within the Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Members are reminded that Zone 3 location does not trigger a requirement for Transport Infrastructure Payments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval covering submission of details of drainage, estate roads, satisfactory provision of visibility and sight lines, means of vehicular access and timing of occupation.

Application has been accompanied by input by Southern Water who confirm that there is foul sewerage capacity although this would involve off-site works in order for foul drainage to be accommodated. In terms of surface water drainage, Southern Water indicate that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional surface water flows although surface water could be accommodated within a system south of the development site providing the flow was restricted to five litres per second. Southern Water suggest the alternative would be to dispose of surface water flows via soakaways or any local drainage watercourses subject to interested parties' approval.

Council's Ecology Officer comments as follows:

Currently the site is an open green space with trees surrounded by housing. Such areas invariably attract wildlife which is the source of pleasure and enjoyment to occupants of surrounding properties. It is very likely that some garden birds will be using trees and hedges on or adjacent to the site for nesting. Red squirrels have been reported using the site.

Regarding nesting birds, any scrub clearance or removal of woody species should only take place between the months of August and February, inclusive, to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.

Regarding red squirrels, although they will occasionally use this site it cannot be argued that this is a key site for this species being completely surrounded by housing. I would advise that any planting scheme should incorporate some species suitable for red squirrels so that in the longer term they will continue to be able to visit this site.

Fire Safety Officer considers proposal is satisfactory.

Since deferral the site has been inspected by the Council's Tree Officer, who inspected the site and identified a large poplar tree located behind the electricity substation, and a second group of Monterey cypresses located in the centre of the site. He states that neither are sustainable within the framework of the development as planned. He also states that planning conditions would not be reasonable to retain the trees within the outline of development as proposed. Finally, significantly he states that neither species of trees lends themselves to close proximity to housing of this type. He suggests that landscaping conditions could be imposed to ensure appropriate replacement planting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of thirteen letters of objection, five from Cranleigh Gardens, four from Nodes Road, three from Wyatts Lane and one from Selman Gardens. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Cul-de-sac Selman Gardens regularly used as play area for children, therefore, concern expressed that the additional traffic and extension of this road would create safety implications.

Concern that existing road system, i.e. Cranleigh Gardens and Selman Gardens are inadequate to accept additional traffic caused by this development.

Concern that the proposal does not provide for sufficient parking and would therefore put pressures on parking in the surrounding roads.

Many objectors consider the proposal represents overdevelopment, out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area, referring to the site's semi-rural location.

Intensity of development will likely result in loss of privacy and overlooking in respect of adjoining properties. Property owner who adjoins the south eastern boundary raises particular concern in respect of plots 6 and 7 in terms of their close proximity to that boundary and if approved consideration should be given to boundary treatments to overcome any potential overlooking.

Removal of trees will affect the wildlife habitat which is extensively referred to in letters of objection, with the whole site being considered as a particularly important environmental area for wildlife, with reference to birds, red squirrels etc.

Concern expressed regarding inadequacy of drainage systems in the area to accommodate discharge from this new development.

Adjoining property owner to the southeast makes specific reference to the need to retain and protect the existing sycamore tree and other trees along this boundary.

One objector suggests developer provides traffic calming to the existing road system and provide a specific footpath link to Pallance Road if the scheme is approved.

Comments received from Northwood Residents Association which are summarised as follows:

Consider that the density of 43 dwellings per hectare is excessive given the rural location of the site. They consider that density should be at the lower end of the 30-50 dwellings per hectare advised in PPG3.

Could the Council in partnership with a local developer investigate a planning gain of a footpath link from the development of Pallance Road, thus enhancing pedestrian accessibility to bus stop but also to post office and other local facilities.

Further letter received from local Councillor Roger Mazillius confirming opposition to the proposal and supporting issues raised above, but also making point that Selman Gardens is almost pedestrianised with no pavement and suggesting that if approval is granted this proposal would double the number of units accessing this cul-de-sac.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Principle

Whilst recognising the concerns being expressed by local residents it would be very difficult to resist the principle of development on this site as it clearly represents an ideal brownfield area of land for development being situated within the development envelope boundary and ensuring a more than reasonable amount of garden still remains for the five existing dwellings. Therefore the principle for developing this land is acceptable in general planning policy terms and I can see no sustainable reason to refuse the application.

Finally, in terms of principle, the fact that the cul-de-sac Selman Gardens was left open-ended was a clear pointer to its potential to be extended into land to the northwest, a provision which was fully supported by an Inspector in June 1989. (See planning history).

Density

Main issue therefore is the appropriateness of the density of development indicated in relation to the site's location and general characteristics of the area. It is important to appreciate that this is a suburban site within an area of particularly low density. A repeat of such low density would be entirely unacceptable under current planning policy guidelines. I would suggest therefore that an average density between the figures of 30 - 50 units per hectare would represent a reasonable compromise and fulfill the aims of PPG3 to make efficient use of urban land. Members will note that the twelve units represents a reduction by two from that on the previous withdrawn application and the resultant density of 43 units per hectare is considered to be acceptable. For information, the density of Cranleigh Gardens is 26.5 units per hectare which would be deemed to be under development under current day density standards.

The question of whether or not a proposal represents overdevelopment is not necessarily related to a specific density but more related to the quality of the development and whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationships between dwellings and in relation to affect on adjoining properties.

Resulting from the previous withdrawn application the applicant has now introduced an acceptable range of dwelling types, with there being a predominance of two bedroom units. Such a range of dwelling types assists in widening the range of income groups who will be able to afford the units. It is important to appreciate that development of this type will assist in contributing to the local economy.

Concerns relating to density noted but important to stress the proposal seeks consent for single storey and chalet-style dwellings which sit in relatively small plots but are themselves small in footprint. This fully respects the pattern of development in the area but in the form of smaller units and hence the apparent excess in density.

Arrangement of Dwellings

Applicants have taken on board the criticisms in respect of the previous withdrawn scheme, not only by varying the range of dwellings but also locating those dwellings within plot sizes which reflect the level of accommodation. Also, the general aspect of each unit within each plot has been carefully considered dependant upon the plot's location relative to the new access road. I am now satisfied that the layout has been more carefully considered to take maximum advantage of the site's shape and should result in a reasonably good quality development.

Impact of Neighbours

It is important to appreciate that although nine of the dwellings will have some first floor accommodation, in every case that first floor accommodation is internally facing with specific avoidance of dormer windows directly overlooking any adjoining gardens. This could also be controlled by condition. In terms of plots 6 and 7 it is appreciated that effectively their rear elevations are very close to the south eastern boundary, however, again careful internal planning of those units along with provision of screen boundary treatment should not result in any overlooking at all in that direction. Essentially, it is important to appreciate that these units are low profile properties reflecting the type of development in the area.

Therefore, whilst accepting that any development on this site, whether it be twelve units or even less, would have an inevitable impact on the environment currently enjoyed by local residents. However, I do not consider that this proposal will have any greater impact than the Cranleigh Gardens/Selman Gardens development had on the existing environment some ten to twelve years ago.

The major difference with this proposal is the slightly higher density and therefore the smaller gardens. With regard to plot sizes generally, Members' attention is drawn to a recent allowance of an appeal where the Inspector stated that the need to achieve high densities will inevitably result in smaller plots and therefore it is simply unrealistic to expect the very low density developments which surround this site to be repeated. Unfortunately smaller plots mean the dwellings are therefore closer to adjoining properties and it is the careful attention to the internal layouts, height and mass of those dwellings which reduces undue impact.

Access/Parking - Traffic Implications

I have already referred to the status of Selman Gardens being open-ended and I would also refer to the Highway Engineer recommending conditions which suggests that he considers that the layout of Cranleigh Gardens, not surprisingly, is capable of accepting additional development without creating hazards to highway users. Selman Gardens itself is a short cul-de-sac serving no more than seven to eight units and has a relatively narrow traffic calmed carriageway width and therefore traffic speeds are likely to be minimal. The new access road to serve the twelve units is similarly designed being curved in its alignment and again relatively narrow to continue the traffic calmed theme.

In terms of parking, parking provision is well within the 75% of guidelines required under Zone 3 policy with each unit being provided with at least one parking space. Whilst there are no guarantees this level of parking provision should not result in any additional pressures for on-street parking, particularly in respect of Selman Gardens or Cranleigh Gardens. It is extremely unlikely that any overflow parking would take place in either of those roads.

Members will recall that it was suggested that a pedestrian footpath should be considered linking the new cul-de-sac through Selman Gardens through to Cranleigh Gardens. The provision of such a footpath has proved impossible to achieve within the confines of the current highway. However, Members will note that the applicants have considered very carefully the existing Selman Gardens cul-de-sac and the additional information clearly indicates that carriageway widths fully comply with the shared surface cul-de-sac principles laid down in Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide Places, Streets and Movements. This, coupled with the enhanced pinch point and alignment of the new access road, leads me to the view that the proposal fully complies with the shared surface principles and serves a number of units well within the threshold figure of 25 units. I therefore do not consider it will be sustainable to refuse the application on the basis that this would introduce any additional hazards to pedestrians because of the additional number of units.

Members also raised the possibility of achieving a footpath link from the development through to Pallance Road. Further consideration of this suggestion, however, suggests that it would be impractical and would have serious implications with regard to crime prevention, providing a quick and inconspicuous escape route for intruders. Also, such a path would be exiting on to Pallance Road where there is no pavement, and the road itself is comparatively narrow. Again I would not suggest that the Planning Authority could insist on such a requirement on these grounds alone.

With regard to the possibility of additional development being served off the new road, applicants point out that adjoining land is in two separate ownerships, but more significantly, to achieve access to it would require the crossing of a third property's driveway. Such circumstances would make it unlikely for land assembly to be achieved.

The applicant points out that it has been difficult enough to keep five landowners on board with regard to this scheme in any event. Members are advised that land assembly is encouraged within PPG3 - Housing as a way of achieving more comprehensive development more able to deliver housing at an appropriate density.

Ecology Issues

Concern being expressed regarding impact of this proposal on wildlife habitat with particular reference to loss of trees are noted. A former Council Tree and Landscape Officer confirms my own view that the conifer trees were not particularly good specimens nor are the other trees to be removed in the south western corner. It is accepted however that these trees could well provide some wildlife habitat, with particular reference to red squirrels. The existence of red squirrels on the site should not necessarily prevent development. The proposal itself makes provision for new tree planting which would be likely to exceed the number of trees that exist on the site. Providing the correct species are chosen these trees, along with any further hedgerows and shrub planting, should also provide potential wildlife habitat.

The most important tree from a visual point of view is the large sycamore tree and the applicants have recognised this importance by putting a greater practical distance from the crown edge of that tree than was indicated on the previous withdrawn scheme. In general it is important that Members appreciate that the site is in the form of domestic garden areas with some being overgrown and others being better managed, with one area being in the form of a paddock. As such they cannot be deemed to be special areas and whilst wildlife habitat may occupy these areas it would not be deemed to be sufficient to warrant a resistance to the principle of development on the site, a view supported by the Council's Ecology Officer.

Drainage

Applicants have now provided drainage information and indeed have indicated in some detail the route that the foul drainage will take in order to discharge into a sewer with sufficient capacity. Surface water drainage is less clear although Southern Water has referred to a discharge point to the south which would provide capacity. Applicants, however, are suggesting discharging surface water into the ground by way of a soakaway system which would be in compliance with the SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) which are being strongly recommended by the Environment Agency as a method of putting surface water back into the ground as opposed to discharging it through pipes. Such a system would be dependant upon percolation tests and would need to be carefully designed by a hydro engineer. Given that the application is in outline form I suggest that this matter can be dealt with by condition and should not prevent the approval of the application in principle.

Boundary Treatments

Concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners regarding potential for overlooking are duly noted and in this regard I would suggest a condition both requiring erection of suitable screen fencing, but also retention of and reinforcement of existing hedgerows where they exist and provide suitable screening.

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 of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the numerous issues have been addressed in this outline application and that the proposal represents appropriate development on this important brownfield site. The potential for development on this land was recognised as long ago as the early 1990s by the open-ended nature of Selman Gardens and the proposal before Members is merely complying with current day policies which encourage higher densities and more efficient use of the land to take pressures off greenfield sites. The range of dwelling types are considered to be appropriate along with the type of bungalow or chalet bungalow which should reduce impact on neighbouring properties. Following deferral Members will note that the applicants have spent some time in considering the issues raised, and whilst the amendments to the scheme are relatively minor I consider that they have justified the approach that they have taken, particularly with regard to any perceived dangers that may be caused by the extension of Selman Gardens as a cul-de-sac. The use of shared surface cul-de-sacs is a common feature on more modern estates, and the extension of this Selman Gardens should be seen as no different to those established types of cul-de-sacs. I therefore continue to consider that the proposals are acceptable and do not conflict with policies contained with the UDP or within National Guidance, and therefore recommend accordingly.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the buildings, 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.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface water disposal system shall indicate connection at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Details of the design and construction of the new access road and car parking areas together with details of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall allow for a minimum carriageway width of 4.8 metres.

Reason: In compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

7	The premises shall not be occupied until the access and/or visibility splays as shown on the approved plan have been provided. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing sycamore tree which abuts the south eastern boundary shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier around the crown edge of that tree where it overhangs the application site. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification:

1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a)No placement or storage of material;

(b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals.

(c)No placement or storage of excavated soil.

(d)No lighting of bonfires.

(e)No physical damage to bark or branches.

(f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area.

(g)No changes in ground levels.

(h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers.

(i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged.

Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The existing hedgerow along the south eastern boundary shall be retained and shall be protected from damage for the duration of the works on site by the erection of a 1.2 metre minimum height chestnut paling fencing. Any parts of the hedgerow removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and in any case by not later than the end of the first available planting season with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing hedge in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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 dwellings 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 in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The pair of dwellings on plots 1 and 2 shall have no first floor windows facing south westerly direction and the dwellings on plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 shall have no first floor windows facing south easterly direction.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time.

Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Before development hereby permitted is commenced details shall be submitted and approved indicating the surface treatments to be used in the construction of the enhanced traffic calming pinch point where the existing Selman Gardens cul-de-sac abuts the proposed shared surface cul-de-sac, and any such pinch point shall be constructed in accordance with those agreed details. No dwelling shall be occupied until the pinch point has been constructed.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION

With regard to the issue of routing of construction traffic Members will be aware that the Planning Authority are not able to control this aspect of development. Longstanding national advice indicates that 'planning conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the right of passage over public highways'. I would suggest however that an advisory letter be sent to the applicant suggesting that the management of construction traffic be carefully considered to in the interests of reducing disturbance to local residents.

Letter be sent to applicants advising that the management of construction traffic be carefully considered to in the interests of reducing disturbance to local residents.

TCP/26112 P/00170/04 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 04/02/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr C Scott & Mrs S Scott

Demolition of outbuilding; outline for end of terrace house

land adjacent 1, Sherwood Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is regarded as being contentious having attracted a large number of representations, including comments from the MP, Andrew Turner.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 6 weeks and 4 days to date. A decision at this meeting will mean that the application will have been dealt with within the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is set within the prison estate comprising of late 60’s style semi detached and terraced properties with lawned garden areas fronting these dwellings, some with driveways. Proposal is located to west of number 1 Sherwood Drive at junction with Northumberland Road. Site is currently lawned and sectioned off by low post and chain fencing which defines the boundary with the parking and access to the properties on Northumberland Road. Site is bounded to the North by the prison wall of Albany Prison.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No relevant history

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought to demolish an outbuilding on the west side of 1 Sherwood Drive and outline planning permission for end of terrace house with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development boundary on Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New Development will be concentrated within Exiting Urban Areas

S6 All Development will be expected to be of a High Standard of Design

S7 There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, although new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 Infill Development

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development

U11 Infrastructure and Services Provision

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved. However they do note that this property is on the old prison estate which is served by un-adopted roads

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from the MP requesting that consideration is given to Disability Discrimination Act and implications of this application, in light of the effects potential construction work would have on a seriously ill person living adjacent the site and possible problems of accessibility onto the highway.

27 letters, including 22 pro forma letters, received from local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Parking in this area is limited and proposal will make situation worse.

· Over development of the area.

· Another house will exacerbate the already inadequate drainage facility.

· Loss of light due to proximity of proposal to properties along Northumberland Road.

· Approval would not precedent for similar proposals.

Concern was also expressed regarding land ownership and loss of right of way, that building work associated with the proposal would cause a major influx of traffic due to heavy lorries and equipment, and properties would no longer be semi-detached resulting in devaluation. However, these matters are not relevant to the determination of the application.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings.

Site is located within development boundary and proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle. With regard to suggestions that proposal represents over development, I am satisfied that the site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings without detracting from amenities of the area or of neighbouring properties. In particular, site is of adequate width to accommodate building of similar proportions to applicant's property and whilst creating a terrace of three dwellings, this would not be out of keeping with the general pattern of development in the area.

Concerns have been raised by owners of the neighbouring property regarding accessibility of land for parking and the turning area at the junction Northumberland Road and Sherwood Drive. Applicant has confirmed in writing that there is no intention to alter the turning head in any way. With regard to the question of rights of access, whilst not a material planning consideration, this is outside the designated site area. Therefore, it is not considered that development would obstruct the right of way.

In terms of drainage it is my opinion that one dwelling would not add significantly to flows to the foul system. However, I would recommend that this should Members be minded to approve application this can be addressed by a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed drainage scheme including calculations and capacity studies which will need to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in order to alleviate any potential drainage problems.

Letter received from the MP raises various issues relating to personal circumstances and asks that the Authority considers the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act arising from this application. However, in accordance with Disability Discrimination Act 1995 it is unlawful to:

“discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services or the disposal or management of premises and to make provisions about the employment of disabled person”.

Therefore it is considered that this legislation is not relevant to the consideration of this application and the likely disturbance/nuisance which could arise from construction work.

With regard to issues of loss of light due to proximity of proposal to the properties along Northumberland Road I am satisfied that sufficient distance would be maintained between these properties and the proposed dwelling and will not cause any significant or unacceptable loss of light. All other points raised are not planning considerations.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. in particular, consideration has been given to the issues raised by the MP and the likely impact of this proposal on the individual concerned. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Whilst Highway Engineer has recommended a condition in respect of access to the site, this matter is resolved for subsequent approval and I do not consider it would be appropriate to improve the condition at this stage.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal to develop the side garden of the property with a single dwelling would make efficient use of the site without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, particularly D1 (Standards of Design), H5 (Infill Development), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development), G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development).

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building 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 the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/18901/G

Island Motor Salvage, Pritchetts Way, Rookley Industrial Estate, Rookley

Officer: L Harper

Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To determine whether on the basis of the information gathered there is any indication that a breach of planning control exists regarding the occupancy of a mobile home on the site.

Background

At the 14 January 2003 Development Control Committee Meeting Members considered a report relating to a number of alleged breaches of planning control at this site. The recommendation adopted was to (1) serve a Planning Contravention Notice on the Owner of Island Motor Salvage to clarify the residential use of the portable unit in the northwest corner of the site and (2) to invite (without prejudice to the final decision) a planning application for the continued use of the land in the centre of the site for the breaking and storage of vehicles together with the retention of the portakabins used as an office/reception and canteen.

Regarding the first recommendation a Planning Contravention Notice was served on the Owner on 11 February 2003 and returned on 25 April 2003. In summary the information provided in the Notice indicated that a caravan was sited on the land for approximately eighteen years and was replaced by a mobile unit three and one half years ago to comprise fully serviced three bedrooms, lounge, kitchen and bathroom and providing permanent accommodation for two adults and three children. The information contained in the Notice would tend to support the Owner's claim that a caravan has been used on the land for residential purposes for more than ten years.

On the 13 May 2003, Rookley Parish Council was informed of the information provided in the Notice and requested to provide the Local Planning Authority at the earliest opportunity with any pertinent local information that they may be aware of on the matter. The Parish Council was further informed that any statement provided may be used as evidence by the Local Planning Authority. The Parish Council responded on 16 September 2003 asking the Planning Authority if proof of community charge payments exists with regard to the caravan over the past ten years. The Planning Authority responded to the Parish Council on 22 September 2003 reiterating the letter of 13 May 2003.

The Parish Council replied on 10 December 2003 stating that the Planning Authority has yet to provide satisfactory answers to questions regarding the residential use of the caravan and reiterating their request for proof of community charge or rate payments.

Members should be aware that the Planning Service cannot seek personal information from another department to then pass onto a third party. In any event should the results not support the owner's position as expressed in the information contained in the Planning Contravention Notice, this cannot be taken as indicative that the evidence was false. Case law has clearly indicated that a failure to comply with one regulatory requirement does not invalidate a claim that can be made under another. The Parish Council have been advised of these facts and informed of the intention for this report to go to this Committee and asked again if they know of any information that the Local Planning authority should take into account. To date no further information has been received from the Parish Council.

With regard to the second recommendation, the Owner was invited on 11 February 2003 to submit without prejudice a planning application. An application was submitted in May 2003 and Temporary Planning Permission TCP/21067/U was granted under delegated procedures in November 2003 for the continued use of land for storage of cars and trucks, storage of damaged vehicles and breaking of cars and trucks expiring 31 December 2006 subject to conditions relating to the boundary fencing, screening of the land and the stacking of scrapped vehicles no higher than 1.8 metres. Accordingly the breach of planning control no longer exists.

On the basis that the Local Planning Authority is considering the sole issue of the length of time the mobile home has been on site and used as accommodation then this falls to be assessed as a legal issue and not one of policy. Accordingly there are no specific Unitary Development Plan Policies which are applied to this judgement. As a general point the site does lie inside the development envelope and any residential use would normally be the subject of the following policies.

Strategic Policies

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

Detailed Policies

G1 Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

G10 Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses

D1 Standards for Design

H12 Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans

Financial Implications

None

Options

1. To note the information provided and accept that this indicates that the caravans have been on the site for over ten years and is now likely to be immune from enforcement action.

2. To note the information provided and to invite the property owner to make a Lawful Development Certificate without prejudice to the final decision to lawfully establish the use of the mobile unit on the land.

3. To note the information presented in the Planning Contravention Notice but reject it as showing a continuous use of the land for the siting of a residential mobile home and to initiate enforcement action requiring the cessation of the use of the mobile home and its removal from the land. Time for compliance six (6) months.

Conclusion

The complaint relating to the unauthorised use of the parcel of land for the storage and breaking of vehicles has now been resolved with the approval for the temporary use of the land until 2006. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the appropriate planning controls have now been applied to this matter and it is now closed.

Turning to the residential use of the land, the information obtained from the Planning Contravention Notice indicates that the Owner has used the northwest corner of the land for residential purposes for approximately eighteen years. If this is accepted then the use is now immune from enforcement action having taken place for in excess of ten years Members should be mindful of two considerations in weighing up the evidence provided. Firstly, while the use may be immune from enforcement action it is not lawful. This can only be established by the successful submission of an application for a Lawful Development Certificate. Secondly, the Planning Contravention Notice carries a criminal liability for knowingly providing false or inaccurate information. As a consequence, the information provided in the Notice is regarded as accurate unless there is a preponderance of evidence from other sources to prove otherwise. The correspondence with the Parish Council was intended to provide such an opportunity but to date no information has been provided.

In coming to the decision to recommend the first option I am aware of the owner's reluctance to make application generally and even if option two were recommended we may need to face the situation if an application was not made. At present the evidence points to immunity which reflects the recommendation below.

Human Rights

In coming to the recommendations not to pursue enforcement action consideration have been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Planning Contravention Notice provided sufficient material information to indicate that the use of the land for residential use is now immune from enforcement action. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council as expressed through the Unitary Development Plan and is in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

1. To note the information provided that the caravans have been established on the site for over ten years and is now likely to be immune from enforcement action.

PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

Background Papers

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

(a) TCP/18901/G

(a) TCP/18901/G

Tel: (01983) 823569

Strategic Policies

Detailed Policies

Recommendation

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services