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 PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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.

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 Legal Services Manager, 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.

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BINSTEAD	Land between Marymead and St Radegund Quarr Road Ryde	TCP/22140/A	3	REFUSAL
FAIRLEE	Little Mousehill Farm Littletown Lane Wootton Bridge	TCP/05327/H	1	APPROVAL
RYDE NORTH EAST	Section of coach park adjoining L A Bowl Esplanade Ryde	TCP/24609	6	APPROVAL
SANDOWN NORTH	95 Avenue Road Sandown	TCP/20941/A	2	APPROVAL
ST JOHNS WEST	Rear of 5 to 13 Blackthorn Close adj proposed surface water attenuation pond off Nicholson Road Ryde	TCP/24584	5	APPROVAL
VENTNOR WEST	Former Tropical Bird Park Old Park Road Ventnor	TCP/22806/B	4	APPROVAL

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BEMBRIDGE SOUTH	74 Howgate Road Bembridge	TCP/24622	16	APPROVAL
BINSTEAD	Part OS Parcel 4261 off Newnham Road Ryde	TCP/14537/D	14	REFUSAL
FAIRLEE	Land rear of 187 Staplers Road Newport	TCP/02704/B	7	APPROVAL
GURNARD	37 Lower Church Road Cowes	TCPL/12605/F	11	APPROVAL
GURNARD	37 Lower Church Road Cowes	LBC/12605/G	12	APPROVAL
NEWPORT SOUTH	Unit 4 Laundry Lane Newport	TCP/12301/B	10	REFUSAL
NORTHWOOD	52 Venner Avenue Cowes	TCP/09491/H	8	APPROVAL
NORTHWOOD	Land between 40 - 44 Coronation Avenue Cowes	TCP/11758/A	9	APPROVAL
PARKHURST	H M Prison Albany 55 Parkhurst Road Newport	TCP/21675/D	17	SEE REPORT
SHANKLIN NORTH	Access between 2b and 4 and land rear of 6 to 10 Landguard Manor Road Shanklin	TCP/13571/C	13	APPROVAL
WROXALL AND GODSHILL	45 Moor View Godshill	TCP/24474	15	APPROVAL

This application was originally considered by Members at their meeting held on 12 February 2002 when it was decided to defer a decision in order to carry out formal site inspection.

Following site visit by Members on 22 March 2002 Members decided that it was appropriate to defer formal consideration to allow for negotiations and further clarification on points. Meeting has been held with applicant and some further revisions proposed together with additional information being supplied and the following report is amended accordingly.

Application relates to land currently used for mixed use of agriculture/horticulture situated on eastern side of Briddlesford Road bounded to north and east by Littletown Lane which is unmade track.

Application seeking agricultural prior approval for two storage buildings on part OS Parcel 6066 was approved by letter dated 20 December 2000.

Application seeking consent for stable block, tack room and feed store together with alterations to vehicular access approved in October 2000. This development which occupies an adjacent field to the west has been implemented.

There are several aspects to current submission which seeks retrospective consent for the various works.

In respect of the two storage buildings approved under agricultural prior notification procedure, consent is sought to use one building (A) to provide covered yard containing animals, tractors and agricultural machinery with second building (B) currently used as part stable and tack room and agricultural workshop with agricultural storage. Each building measures approximately 20 metres by 11.5 metres finished in dark green profiled steel cladding and are located at eastern end of site to the side of rear of principal dwelling on site.

Retention of sand school which measures 39 by 25 metres which is located directly behind one of aforementioned buildings.

Retention of tarmacked access road which runs diagonally across site in north westerly/south easterly direction. Road is approximately 5.8 metres wide and is fenced on both sides giving access to recently constructed buildings and forecourt.

Further alterations proposed by applicant include resurfacing of tarmacadam access road with natural stone chip and road itself to be planted on both sides with native hedging. Entrance to site off Littletown Lane will incorporate pull-in area with new five-bar gated access and close boarded fencing panels.

Applicant also confirms that there is no intention to run a riding school from site and approved buildings will be used for agricultural purposes and additionally has no intention to run industrial use from premises.

Application site lies in open countryside outside any designated development envelope and it is considered the following policies of Unitary Development Plan are particularly relevant:

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

Environmental Health Officer advises that initially there were concerns regarding close proximity of Building A to nearby residential property in respect of potential disamenity which could have been caused as a result of use of building for livestock housing. Having spoken to applicant's agent, he has confirmed there are no animals at present, but proposal to use building for sheep and chickens. On this basis he raises no objection to application subject to condition attached to any consent restricting use of this building to ensure no livestock is kept within this building.

Main planning considerations are firstly, development plan policy contained within the Unitary Development Plan, relevant national guidance and appropriateness of development in this rural location.

Planning background indicates that both building (A) and (B) as identified on submitted plan were approved under Agricultural Prior Notification Procedure on the premise that such buildings were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Just prior to this decision planning consent granted for stable block on adjoining field.

Since these planning decisions have been issued and following formal complaint to this office Planning Contravention Notice has been issued seeking to clarify in particular use to which "agricultural" buildings are put to. Returned Notice confirms date on which both buildings and sand school were constructed and also advises that non-agricultural storage and keeping of non-agricultural livestock commenced in June 2001.

National guidance in PPG7 seeks to ensure rural development is of appropriate design and scale for its location. Guidance note goes on to state that in many rural areas provision needs to be made for new buildings as well as re-use of existing buildings and sensitive small scale new developments can be accommodated in and around many settlements. Note also points out in paragraph 3.4 that agricultural and forestry permitted development rights are granted to meet farming and forestry needs and they should not be abused to circumvent normal planning policies on new building in open countryside.

Members should also be aware that amendments to the GPDO in 1997 provide for situations where buildings approved under Prior Notification do not remain in agricultural use. Briefly, regulations state that if a building erected under specified Agricultural Permitted Development Rights after 1997 permanently ceases to be used for agriculture within ten years of its substantial completion, and planning permission has not been granted authorising development for purposes other than agriculture within three years of the permanent cessation of its agricultural use and there is no outstanding appeal, the building must be removed unless the Local Planning Authority has agreed otherwise.

Policies of the Unitary Development Plan generally seek to ensure appropriate design standards for all development. Policy C1 seeks to support appropriate development in the countryside provided landscape is protected. Policy C15 along with advice contained within PPG7 supports principle of agricultural diversification.

Policy C18 generally supports related agricultural activity provided such development requires rural location, is of benefit to rural economy, is well designed, does not have significant impact on nearby residential property, has adequate road access and does not detract from landscape beauty.

In respect of keeping of horses and related activity Policy C22 supports such recreational use subject to specific criteria. Similar provisions relate to siting of stable blocks and provision of all-weather riding facilities in countryside.

In respect of buildings constructed, applicant maintains that building (A) is to be used for housing of livestock (sheep and chickens) whilst building (B) will be used partly for stabling of horse together with ancillary hay storage and agricultural machinery material. Workshop area is intended to be used for work in connection with farm.

From a recent site inspection it does not appear that either building is used for related agricultural storage purposes with building (A) incorporating tractor, dumper trucks, pick-up van, private vehicle, building materials, cement mixer and generator and with building B comprising block work stable unit together with storage of hay, timber sheets and further building material.

Whilst in principle the use of building (A) for keeping of sheep and chickens may be acceptable, particularly bearing in mind comments from Environmental Health Officer, I am of the opinion that, as currently used, neither building is likely to satisfy requirements of Prior Notification decision in that buildings are not used as originally intended under Prior Notification and

specified in application, which stated buildings to be used for hay and agricultural machinery storage barn. Furthermore, design and external finish of building are not considered appropriate for such usage.

In terms of building (B), clearly use of part of this building for stabling is not appropriate and again in design terms, any building incorporating steel clad structure and block work would not normally be permitted for stabling purposes.

In terms of sand school such feature it is felt should be more appropriately located close to or adjoining approved stable block and not in relatively remote location, presumably being utilised by stable unit within building (B).

With regards to recently constructed tarmac access road which runs diagonally across site, agent, in support, states that access point referred to was served by 2.5 metre wide road poorly constructed of compacted earth which, due to sharp bend, was not accessible by many vehicles. New access road was constructed to it's current specification and width to aid delivery of materials for construction of barns (A) and (B), to allow emergency service access to client's property and to enable easier access for modern farm vehicles.

Point should be made that site is bounded by access track way on two sides and at time of Agricultural Prior Notification it was assumed the buildings would be utilising access at or adjacent to existing dwelling house. Whilst not ideal, standard of access is similar to many other agricultural concerns and it is not considered sufficiently serious in terms of standard to warrant construction of new roadway which, given its size and method of construction, represents significant feature in locality. Indeed, it is considered that roadway has fundamentally altered rural character of area and is far in excess of what would normally be required to service agricultural buildings.

Finally, area of land between buildings and track way has been laid with scalpings to provide hardstand area and whilst works in itself may not be considered to be unreasonable this aspect of application should be read in conjunction with application as submitted in it's entirety when considering impact of scheme on locality.

Consent for both buildings was granted on agricultural justification in this rural location. From previous comments and inspection there are serious concerns as to whether or not buildings are currently put to active agricultural related uses and certainly within building (B), formation of stable block and associated hay storage are without doubt not agricultural and it is important to note that construction of such stable blocking materials used would not be supported by the Planning Authority. Stable blocks are generally approved on basis of traditional finish, i.e. timber with felted or clad roofs in compliance with policy, and construction of stable block within block work and corrugated sheeted building would not be favourably considered by Committee. In respect of sand school, given that keeping of horses cannot be supported in planning terms within these buildings the sand school itself is inappropriately located, remote from approved stable complex and itself represents additional visual intrusion in rural landscape. In order to minimise such impact such facilities are expected to be located close to stable complex they serve.

The construction of the access road both in terms of it's scale, design and construction is considered inappropriate and somewhat excessive to serve buildings approved under Prior Notification. It is considered that both holding and buildings together with dwelling house could reasonably be served from existing tracks and there is therefore no over-riding justification for such works. Furthermore, the laying of a 5.8 metre wide road with tarmac finish and enclosed fencing has, in my opinion, had considerable detrimental visual impact on locality and fundamentally altered former rural character of landscape.

Letter from agent requests deferment of application to allow for further negotiations with alterations that may well avoid recommended enforcement action. He refers to entrance road which, in his opinion, must remain in one form or another to provide adequate access to the farmhouse and its building. His client however, did not anticipate planning objections being raised to its construction and width. Subject to negotiations, his client is prepared to alter this aspect hopefully in a manner that is acceptable. He also wishes to eliminate the sand school from the current application and resubmit this as a separate application to be considered in the near future. His actions, it is suggested, should largely eliminate the objections raised in the officer's report. Agent wishes Members to be fully aware of the willingness of his client to negotiate and trust that application can be deferred for future negotiations or at least considered on site by Members of the Committee.

Whilst there are still concerns concerning the scale and incremental development of this site, as outlined in earlier section applicant is willing to carry out some revisions which will help to some extent assimilate development into rural landscape. Particularly, impact of road will be reduced by alternative road finish and landscaping and applicant is fully aware of the appropriate uses to which buildings can be put in order to continue compliance with the Agricultural Prior Notification Approval. Whilst the sand school remains in relatively remote position away from approved stable block landscaping will help screen this feature and visual impact of this aspect of development is not itself considered sufficiently serious to warrant refusal of application.

Given Members concern expressed at time of site inspection it is considered that applicant has to a large extent addressed issues of concern and amendments will reduce impact of development to acceptable level and position has now been reached where I do not consider it would be reasonable for the Local Planning Authority to withhold consent and I therefore recommend accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the proposed revisions will help minimise the impact on character and appearance of locality. I therefore consider scheme to satisfy requirements of Unitary Development Plan policy and consider conditional approval an appropriate recommendation.

Application was deferred at meeting on 18 February 2002 to allow further consultation between applicants and Social Services. This was due to a late representation reported to Committee which was an objection from Social Services who were unable to support the application for the following reasons:

Concern about lack of supervision, there being no discussion with the Social Services Directorate, not featuring in their planning.

Application relates to substantial detached property in residential area situated on corner of St John’s Crescent and Avenue Road, Sandown. The building is currently vacant and appears in a poor state of repair with overgrown garden.

Established Use Certificate issued in 1992 for the use of land for seasonal staff accommodation for staff employed at the Ocean Hotel, Sandown between April and October every year for a maximum of twenty persons.

External alterations consist mostly of repairs, bricking up of opening at ground floor on north elevation and a new window on the southern elevation at first floor. The premises will have six regular occupants utilising six of the seven bedrooms. The seventh bedroom will be used for a residential support person.

Covering letter accompanying application and details of Charity have been submitted. Letter says Mothers Against Drugs Defacto (MADD) is committed to providing shared accommodation for recovering addicts in a safe environment, whilst at the same time providing full support in the form of advice, therapy or further education. The properties under the management of MADD are not treatment centres or hostels. There is no time limit on the duration of stay by house members and the houses are self managed with the house members reporting weekly to the Scheme Manager through the Team Leader. Each house member will, in turn, take on the role of Team Leader on a weekly basis. This is an important aspect of living in the house since this encourages members to take responsibility for themselves and other house members.

All house members must sign a contract covering basic house rules. Members have to demonstrate a continuing commitment to their recovery programme by attending regular meetings and following organised recovery programmes.

The letter also states that MADD are acutely aware of the sensitivity of proposals within the community. The Mother Against Drugs Defacto contract includes conditions of residency to abstain from taking all mood-altering chemicals, not to enter into illegal activity. Contract involves taking part in random drug tests and also states any house member who uses will be immediately discharged.

Relevant Planning Policy is H11 Houses in Multiple Occupation (HM0s) states that “planning applications for houses in multiple occupation will only be approved where:

a there is no significant loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers or adverse impact on the character of the area;

An HMO can be defined as a dwelling containing more than six people, not related, living as a communal household, and sharing living, dining, kitchen and toilet facilities. HMOs provide a valuable supply of housing at low cost for people who are often with low income. Their retention may be acceptable if minimum standards, including fire and environmental health can be met, i.e. the property is capable of meeting requirements involving sound insulation, means of escape and fire regulation.”

Main planning considerations are suitability or otherwise of property for this purpose, effect any such use would have on amenities or environment of residents in area, acceptable amenity area and easily accessible public transport.

Sandown Town Council object on grounds Sandown already has two such establishments, another would be severe strain on overstretched resources of Police, Social Services, Medical Centre. The Town Council also state they have received many letters of objection from residents with young families in vicinity with concerns for their children.

Environmental Health Section have no adverse comment but advise consult housing/fire safety regarding means of escape, fire detection and refuse. Also request advice to applicant regarding Health and Safety of employment of persons at work.

Housing Section raise no objection in principle to the intended use. Senior Housing Officer confirms he will write to applicants and send information pack regarding HMOs. However, from reading details, appears this may be shared house and case law has tended to put shared houses outside of Housing Act HMO legislation.

Building Control Officer confirms building work alterations will be covered by Building Control Legislation but improvement of means of escape may not depending on use and level of care provided.

"I have now had the opportunity to talk to Mrs Kilgariff from Mothers Against Drugs Defacto and she has been able to reassure me on most of the points raised. Mrs Kilgariff has assured me that the unit will be staffed 24 hours a day with a resident warden and that she will be looking to accommodate Island residents. She has outlined her protocols with residents and although I have not seen the written details, these seem to be sufficiently robust to reassure me that the hostel would be effectively managed. I therefore have no objections to this application being considered."

A Petition objecting to proposal has been received containing 64 signatures. Twenty eight individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

2. Inappropriate location, due to residential character of area, impact on local residents, particularly given proximity of school in locality, number of elderly residents and disabled residents.

Since the matter was deferred, a further thirteen letters of objection have been received. Objections relate to matters already summarised above.

Applicant submitted letter following deferment expressing view that occupancy or management operation of premises not relevant to application under consideration and was concerned at deferment of application.

Applicant has been advised that matters relating to use of premises and any amenities of occupants of the premises and amenities of occupants of neighbouring premises would be material planning considerations in the determination of the application.

Further letter received from applicant dated 27 March 2002 confirming residential 24 hour support will be available at this property.

This application seeks to change a building to six occupants and the manager from that used previously for staff accommodation for up to twenty people. The level of activity has therefore been established.

Applications of this nature contribute to the full range of normal housing provision and whilst such proposals inevitably attract local concern, it is important to bear in mind that the identity of occupants or type of person to be accommodated by reference to age or other characteristics is not itself land use planning consideration.

The main consideration to determine this application is whether it complies with Policy H11 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

With regard to effect on use of amenities of other residents, in land use terms this residential use itself is appropriately located in residential area. The property is detached, in a town location, close to the town centre, accessible to public transport and has a garden area. This assessment needs to be made based on whether the level of proposed usage is appropriate and whether it would result in any undue disturbance or cause detrimental change to the residential character and amenity of area as a whole which would justify withholding permission.

In terms of intensity of use, given property’s previous use for up to twenty people, it is considered no reasonable planning objection can be raised in terms of over development of site as there is a reduction in intensity. Also, given detached nature of property, limited external alterations to building, proposals are unlikely to have undue adverse effect on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. Alterations to building should improve visual appearance.

Whilst concerns expressed by residents are appreciated, it is difficult to objectively assess such comments in relation to whether perceived problems referred to would occur and the Local Planning Authority would find it difficult to sustain any such objections because of lack of evidence. It should also be noted that when such matters do fall to be considered by Inspectorate at appeal, it is common for such objections to be rejected on basis that they are subjective comments which lack evidential detail or are matters which are not planning considerations. Public concern and fear are matters which are capable of constituting material planning considerations and accordingly should be given appropriate weight in decision making process.

Applicant has now confirmed residential 24 hour support to premises which can be covered by planning condition to the satisfaction of Social Services.

In conclusion, it is inevitable and understandable such use will attract local concern. In assessing that concern however, it is important relevant planning considerations are taken into account in deciding whether this premises is suitable for proposed use.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I do not consider there is sufficient reason to substantiate a refusal of planning permission and outweigh the primacy of the IW Unitary Development Plan Policy H11 and recommend accordingly.

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 use hereby permitted is commenced. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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.

The premises hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a person is in residence providing residential supervisory support. Details of such supervision to be provided and means of recording the attendance shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Any such agreement will then be implemented and maintained permanently thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of the premises and nearby residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Application relates to rectangular plot of undeveloped land situated on the southern side of unmade section of Quarr Road approximately 150 metres south west of Quarr Abbey.

Identical application considered at meeting held in March 1997 when proposal was recommended refusal mainly on policy grounds. Following site inspection held on 2 April 1997 application was approved subject to conditions.

This application seeks renewal consent for construction of detached property on this plot to be used as residential annex for relations of monks residing at Quarr Abbey.

Plans indicate single storey property comprising four bedsits each with their own bathroom and kitchen facilities. Building would have identical building line to adjacent property 'St Radegund' and be located towards western side of site in order to ensure retention of mature trees on site.

Property would have approximate dimensions of some 14 metres in width with depth of approximately 16 metres with height to ridge of 7 metres above ground level.

Policy G1 expects development to be located within settlement whilst policy G2 seeks to resist development which would lead to consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low density development in countryside.

Policy G4 seeks new development to harmonise with its surroundings whilst policy G5 outlines exceptions to normally restrictive policy of development outside defined settlements.

Policy H5 does allow for infill development where it will not unduly damage amenity of neighbouring property or surrounding area.

Policy H9 allows for residential development outside development boundary subject to specific criteria.

With regards location of health, social, community, religious or educational services policy U1 allows for such development provided it is located within or adjoining development envelope boundaries of communities they serve.

Applicant submitted further representations in respect of previous submission namely:

"(a) The four units indicated, three are for the elderly and the other is for the carer.

(d) I consider infill to be an appropriate description, as the site is located between two dwellings owned by the Abbey, all of which is within the grounds of the Abbey and is for their personal use.

The Abbey is happy to enter into an agreement to retain the property for the stated use.

(e) This application is unique in so far as it is part and parcel of Quarr Abbey.

(f) The two residences either side of the proposed site, both of whom are tenants of the Abbey, are aware of the application and have raised no objection. the building is unobtrusive being single storey."

In support of application agent states that purpose of building is to accommodate elderly parents of monks (mainly women) so that they may be looked after, as women by nature of the Order are unable to enter monastery.

Main planning consideration with regard to this proposal is the fact that the development is clearly located outside established development envelope in location where there is a presumption against new residential development. Proposal in seeking to provide accommodation related to nearby Abbey does not fall within the criteria identified within development plan that would allow exception to normally restrictive policy.

Proposal is contrary to development plan. However, other material considerations must be assessed to see if they outweigh the primacy of the plan led system.

Whilst proposed building would be located between two immediately adjoining residential properties, I do not consider that proposal can be seen as infilling given isolated nature of site and limited number of dwellings already in existence. Whilst PPG7 (revised) stated that sensitive infilling in small gaps within small groups of houses may be acceptable, much will depend on the character of surroundings and number of such groups in the area. Given limited number of dwellings already in existence, I consider proposal would more properly represent undesirable consolidation of what is scattered development in open countryside. As such development can be seen to be contrary to Policy G3 of the UDP which states:

"Proposals for development which will lead to the consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low density development in the countryside will not normally be permitted."

Policy is backed up by statement which points out that UDP directs development to those areas defined by development envelopes and that presence of existing developments in countryside is not in itself considered reason for accepting further developments which will cause an undesirable urbanisation of rural areas.

As previously reported it is considered this proposal would effectively consolidate scattered development rather than constituting infill development.

Turning specifically to the details of the development, due regard has not been paid to the scale and massing of surrounding properties. it is also unclear if 'bedsits' is the correct description of these units. They appear to be self-contained units with a shared utility area. there is no element of care and it appears that four households are being formed, increasing the density and level of activity on the site.

Policy does allow for religious facilities but only where they are located within or adjoining development envelope boundaries. Proposed location does not meet this criteria.

Whilst appreciating requirements of applicants, I do not consider circumstances are such to warrant approval contrary to adopted policies of development plan.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I consider that notwithstanding Members previous decision on this site development as proposed cannot be justified in planning policy terms and I recommend accordingly.

Application relates to former bird park and adjoining land on the Undercliff at St. Lawrence. Site is bounded on all sides by Old Park Road and is part of larger area which formed the curtilage to Old Park House, now used as an hotel, and which is designated as an Historic Park and Garden of Local Interest.

Site effectively has two distinct areas. Western half of site, containing walled gardens and large pond formerly operated as the Tropical Bird Park tourist attraction. Single storey reception and facilities building immediately abuts western side of walled garden and many of the bird enclosures remain on site, although they are in poor state of repair. Eastern half of site contains bungalow constructed during 1960's and the remains of an old Orchid House. The whole site is heavily overgrown and has a neglected appearance.

In April 1956 outline planning permission was granted for residential development adjoining Old Park Hotel on an area which equates to the western half of the current application site, including the walled gardens. Plans which accompanied the submission showed two dwellings within the walled gardens and one on site of the Orchid House.

In April 1961 planning permission was granted for the erection of a bungalow and garage and the formation of a means of vehicular access. Plans which accompanied the submission showed dwelling constructed on base of and having similar footprint to Orchid House.

Planning permission was granted in December 1964 for erection of bungalow to east of and immediately adjacent the walled gardens. This dwelling was constructed and now forms part of current proposal which includes upgrading of this building.

An application for a bird sanctuary within the walled gardens and on the surrounding land was refused in August 1969 on grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area, would create an undesirable precedent for further development in the area and that any development of the site should be related to an overall development plan for the site. The applicants requested that this matter was reconsidered by the Planning Committee. As a result, a report was considered by the Committee in July 1970 when it was recommended that the applicants be informed that favourable consideration would be given to a revised application on the lines of that previously submitted subject to appropriate conditions in respect of preservation of trees on the site of the proposed car park and landscaping of the overall development. It was also suggested that the applicant should be approached with a view to establishing a one-way road system around the site so as to minimise traffic danger. A subsequent application for the bird sanctuary was approved in August 1970. In accordance with the earlier recommendation, the approval was subject to conditions requiring consent to be obtained in respect of felling of any trees and requiring submission of a landscaping scheme.

Planning permission was granted in March 1999 for conversion of existing buildings to form two holiday units and outline consent for construction of seven holiday units. Six of the holiday units were shown on the submitted plans to be located within the walled gardens with one unit outside and adjacent the existing buildings. It is considered that, whilst this consent remains valid insofar as it relates to the conversion of the existing buildings, it was a requirement of the consent that an application for approval of the reserved matters was submitted before the expiration of three years from the date of the outline consent. No such application was submitted therefore, permission for the seven holiday units involving new buildings cannot be implemented.

Proposal can be broken down into three elements, firstly, restoration and conversion of former Orchid House to form dwelling, secondly, upgrading of existing bungalow at the site and thirdly, partial demolition and conversion of reception/facility building to former bird park to form offices and construction of new dwelling.

Remains of Orchid House comprise base of structure constructed of natural stone and brick projecting approximately 1.3 metres above ground level with voids below, including boiler room, which have vaulted ceilings. Upper section of the glasshouse structure has long since been removed. Proposal would involve restoration of the building, including replacement of the upper structure having appearance of the original glasshouse and conversion to form dwelling providing accommodation comprising entrance hall/dining room, sitting room, conservatory, kitchen, utility room, three bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom. Building would be glazed to front and side elevations with timber cladding to rear elevation punctuated with windows. Front plane of roof would be glazed with slate covering to rear plane.

Existing bungalow within site was constructed during 1960's and provides accommodation comprising entrance conservatory, sitting room, dining room, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom. Building is constructed of faced concrete block work under concrete tile roof and, having regard to character and historic designation of the area, building is considered to be an unsympathetic addition. Proposal involves alterations to fenestration on front elevation of building, rendering of all elevations, provision of large dormer window in front elevation and resurfacing of roof in slate. Internal alterations, which include conversion of roof space to provide additional accommodation will result in provision of two additional bedrooms, resulting in total of four bedrooms within the property. Alterations will result in building having appearance which would be more in keeping with the historic landscape of the area.

Proposal at western end of site involves demolition of just over half of the reception/facilities building, which served the former bird park, and conversion of the remainder to form studios/offices to be used in connection with applicants business as a Landscape Consultant. Building would be extended on southern side to provide car port for two cars. In addition, new dwelling would be constructed immediately adjacent and linked to reception building by single storey element. Dwelling would provide accommodation comprising kitchen, lounge, bedroom, utility room and w.c. at ground floor level with two bedrooms and bathroom at first floor. Elevations to building would be finished partly in render with large areas clad in oak horizontal boarding under slate roof. Decking would be constructed on west side of dwelling leading directly onto lake.

Proposal would result in provision of two new dwellings, in addition to existing bungalow to be upgraded. In conjunction with these works, the whole of the area and, in particular, the walled gardens, will be restored and landscaped in a style sympathetic to the Victorian era.

Site is located outside any settlement defined by the development envelopes on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The site forms part of a large area designated as an Historic Park and Garden of Local Interest and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

G2 – Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes.

Ventnor Town Council welcome the restoration and redevelopment of these buildings and site.

Planning Assistant (Policy) considers policies of most relevance to proposal to be G2, G5, H9 and C17. The proposal to restore the Orchid House has been considered in terms of the requirements of policy C17 which promotes the re-use of rural buildings for employment, tourism and recreation uses and residential use as a last resort in appropriate circumstances. She considers that, whilst it may be argued that the Orchid House is of architectural interest, it appears to be only capable of re-use with significant reconstruction and consequently does not satisfy the criteria of the policy. Furthermore, whilst building may be of historical merit, she comments that application provided no evidence that any attempt has been made to secure alternative uses and the conversion is not subordinate to a tourism, employment or recreational use as required by the policy. Consequently, the proposal for the conversion of the Orchid House for residential purposes is not considered to comply with policy. Similarly, having

considered the relevant policies, she does not consider there to be any justification for the construction of an additional dwelling at the site. In general, she considers that the policy justification for the development of new dwellings in this location appears to be minimal.

AONB Officer comments that site is located within the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is adjacent to the Tennyson Heritage Coast and that he is aware that planning permission has previously been granted for a number of chalet style holiday units to replace the existing gift shop and to be constructed within the walled gardens. He considers that the application represents an opportunity to develop this site in a sympathetic manner which reflects the historic value of this former Victorian garden and enhances the special character of this part of the Undercliff. He is of the opinion that the proposals satisfy the criteria within policies C1 and C2 of the Unitary Development Plan, namely that they take into account the landscape, character and local distinctiveness of the area (C1) and both reduce the impact and upgrade an existing development within the AONB (C2).

The AONB Officer considers that it is vital that the benefits referred to by the applicants are secured through conditioning of any permission granted. He also requests that consideration is given to removal of permitted development rights from the whole site in order to prevent gradual erosion of the purpose of the application by future owners who may not be as sympathetic to the local character of the area. In general, he considers that the re-use of the site has to be of benefit as the current situation of redundant buildings and cages is detrimental to the character of the area. He considers that, whilst the permission for holiday units attempts to address the use of the site, it still represents a less than ideal situation.

The Conservation Officer has considered the information submitted and made comments in respect of the proposal. He considers that the reinstatement of the Orchid House is excellent, using information available from the suppliers of the original glass building, and care has been taken to replicate faithfully the Victorian building. He does not consider there to be a problem with the use of this building as a dwelling unit given that, externally, it will present on most elevations the original concept. Furthermore, the continued use will ensure that the building is maintained and will not fall into disrepair as has happened recently. With regard to the upgrading of the existing bungalow, he considers that this is quite modest and will certainly improve the setting of this building and the rest of the site. Turning to the conversion and upgrading of the former shop and reception area to provide office and studio facilities and the extension to provide the living accommodation, he considers that this makes maximum use of the setting looking down the lake to the fountain and expresses the view that it is to be constructed of sympathetic natural materials suitable for the location. The way the roofs are designed to flow one into the other is a design feature he applauds and the extending of the patio out into the lake allows the design to flow into the landscape. He believes the size of the house shown is not excessive and supports both the design and the concept. In general, he believes that the infrastructure required to allow the development to proceed is well considered and carefully executed and that this is an opportunity for the whole park to be reinstated in a cohesive and long term concept which he fully supports.

Coastal Manager advises that the site lies within an area that is likely to be suitable for development although some of the ground is quite soft and there is a considerable amount of ground water particularly during the winter period. He does not have any specific concerns relating to the proposed development although there may be issues relating to foundation design that Building Control may raise.

Principal Building Control Surveyor is satisfied that, insofar as the proposal relates to alterations to the existing dwelling, conversion of existing buildings and construction of new dwelling that the engineer has considered all factors relevant to ground stability and concluded that the site can be safely developed. However, it will be necessary for application for Building Regulations to be accompanied by further sub-surface investigations. With regard to proposal to rebuild the Orchid House for use as a dwelling, he expresses concern that, whilst engineer has identified certain structural defects, further faults may exist as a result of localised failure of the foundations. Consequently, he considers that it will be likely that more extensive remedial works may be required than anticipated. Furthermore, he advises that the design of the superstructure also needs to be considered in principle at this stage, in order to avoid concentrated point loads. In addition, he comments that no details have been provided regarding the drainage to this building. Further information has been provided in this respect and the Principle Building Control Surveyor comments that engineer accepts that further defects may become apparent and that more extensive remedial works to the remaining structure may be necessary in order to construct the superstructure as proposed. However, this will not prevent the development from proceeding from a structural aspect, although further investigations, details and calculations will be required to accompany the Building Regulation application.

Council's Ecology Officer comments that the site is currently heavily overgrown and would benefit from management. He considers that the site has existing wildlife value and that the proposal would enhance rather than detract from this interest. He considers that the information submitted in support of the proposal recognises the natural assets of the site and the need to reconcile the historic garden restoration with its existing environmental value.

Archaeological Officer confirms that proposal falls within an Historic Park and Garden of Local Interest and that site is also included in the Sites and Monuments Record. He draws attention to provisions of policy B10 of the Unitary Development Plan which seeks to protect historic parks and gardens and support proposals which will result in their restoration, subject to complying with the criteria in the policy. He considers that proposal falls to be determined under this policy and offers the mechanism to restore part of the historic garden at Old Park and to provide a sustainable future for the site. In particular, he considers that as development will be on footprint of existing buildings, it would not seem to result in any fragmentation and the restoration of the area would appear to be sympathetic and appropriate to the archeological and historic interest of the site. If planning permission is granted, he recommends that consent is subject to condition that existing features of the garden are recorded prior to building work taking place.

Isle of Wight Gardens Trust was consulted on proposal by applicant prior to application being submitted to the Council and submission was therefore accompanied by a letter from the Trust. The Gardens Trust acknowledged that consent was granted in 1988 for holiday cottages within the walled gardens and, although far from ideal, it was seen as a means by which the walls to the walled gardens might be preserved. However, there was no indication at that time that a restoration to horticultural use would be forthcoming. The Trust advised that, over the past years the significance and historical importance of Victorian walled gardens has enjoyed an enhanced profile both nationally and here on the Island. They have embarked upon a project to survey and recalled all the walled gardens on the Island and advise that there are few being worked in the traditional manner, although the English Heritage restoration of the Osborne walled garden in 1999/2001 has enabled thousands of visitors annually to enjoy and appreciate its delights. For these reasons, they welcome the prospect of both conservation of the structure at Old Park and the restoration of the walled gardens to horticultural use. However, as they understand that ownership of the walled gardens will pass to the owners of the two adjacent houses, they feel that restrictive covenants will need to be placed upon them to prevent unsuitable development thereon in the future. In addition to the walled gardens, they advise that there are further features both of landscape and historic building interest on this site. In particular, to the west and north of the walled gardens there are well defined water features and to the east the stone base of the Boulton and Paul Orchid House with basement configuration has survived, somewhat remarkably. They note that development proposed would include conservation of these features which, for most of the twentieth century were neglected or devalued by the caging/fencing requirements of the bird park. Again, they consider that there will be need for protection of these features through covenants incorporated in any planning approvals. They reserve the right to comment further on this proposal on submission of the planning application.

Following submission of the planning application, a further letter was received from the Isle of Wight Gardens Trust indicating that they would not wish to retract any of the comments in their earlier letter. However, there were several further points which they felt may be helpful to

Officers and Members of the Planning Committee in determining the application. These points can be summarised as follows:

The consider that the development proposals which include the restoration of this historic park would not adversely affect the character, appearance and setting of the same and are sympathetic and appropriate to its archaeological and historic interest (UDP policy B10).

They consider that the restoration of the walled gardens as shown on the submitted plans will be sympathetic to the original Victorian era.

The incorporation of a management agreement within the planning permission to safeguard fragmentation is seen as being essential. Reference is again made to UDP policy B10.

Whilst the proposal in the brief to offer limited access to the restored landscape to Members of the public is welcomed and further enhances the attractive nature of the project, this offer is vulnerable to withdrawal by first or subsequent owners of the properties unless, as before, some clause is written into the planning permission.

Five letters received from local residents, one of whom is a Member of the Isle of Wight Gardens Trust, supporting proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Site has been degenerating for number of years and has become an eyesore detracting from appearance of the surrounding area.

Proposal will enhance area by restoring landscape and involving sympathetic development of limited scale.

History of site has been thoroughly researched and proposal will be totally in keeping with the area's status as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the historical connections of the site.

There is a need to find alternative uses of walled gardens which are no longer required to serve the needs of large households. Current proposal is best means of enabling the preservation of what remains of an Important Site of Local Historical Importance, and in particular the rebuilding of the Boulton and Paul Orchid House on the footprint of the old structure.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal, including provision of two additional dwellings, is acceptable in principle and whether there are any factors which outweigh any policy objections. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the character of the area, particularly having regard to its designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and whether the proposal will detract from rural character of the area or enhance the appearance and quality of the landscape.

Site is located outside any defined settlement and is therefore considered to be countryside where policies of the Unitary Development Plan, and in particular Policies G1 and G2, would resist further development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals of the Plan. In this respect, Policies G5 and H9 provide categories of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside the defined settlements. In addition, it is necessary to take into account other policies of the Plan and circumstances may arise where development may be justified as an exception to the general policy of resisting development outside the defined settlements. I intend to consider the policy implications of the current proposal by breaking the development down into the elements outlined in the Details of Application section of this report and to then consider the overall effect of the proposal on the character of the area and whether it will have a positive or negative effect.

Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan is relevant to proposals for the reuse and adaption of rural buildings for employment, recreational, tourism purposes or for reuse and adaption for residential use. Such proposals must satisfy quite stringent requirements. The policy imposes a sequential approach to the re-use of buildings in the countryside and when considering an application for the re-use of a building for residential purposes, applicants will normally be expected to demonstrate that every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use. Furthermore, the building should be of substantial, sound and permanent construction and structurally capable for re-use and adaption without major or complete reconstruction. The policy also requires that the conversion respects the local character, building styles and materials and would not entail the loss of significant archeological or architectural features, both internal and external, which contribute to the character of the building and its surroundings.

In the case of the current proposal, whilst it would appear that no effort has been made to secure a suitable alternative use for the Orchid House, the information which accompanies the submission clearly indicates that the structure is of historic interest and the evidence clearly suggests that the building was of architectural merit. However, the building is in need of substantial reconstruction, albeit in a style to reflect the appearance and character of the original structure. Whilst the re-use of a rural building for domestic purposes may exceptionally be permitted outside the defined settlements, in this instance, having regard to the level of reconstruction required, I do not consider that policy C17 is applicable to current proposal.

Turning to the refurbishment of the existing dwelling, I consider that there is no objection in principle to the proposed alterations and that they will result in a significant improvement in the appearance of the building. Therefore, I do not consider there to be any policy objection to this element of the proposal.

The former reception/facilities buildings to the bird park at the western end of the site are considered to be of relatively poor quality construction, no particular architectural merit and make no contribution to the landscape character of the area. I consider that the re-use of all or part of these buildings for a commercial purpose would be acceptable in principle and would not conflict with the requirements of policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan. However, having regard to the location of the site, outside any settlement defined by the development envelopes in the UDP, the provision of a new dwelling at this location would be contrary to policies relating to this type of development and, in this instance, I do not consider that the proposal falls into any of the categories specified in policies G5 or H9 which may exceptionally be permitted outside the defined settlements.

The applicant has carried out extensive research into the history of the Old Park Estate and the buildings which previously occupied the site. As part of the redevelopment of the former bird park and adjoining land, the applicant intends to restore and landscape the area in a style reflecting the original character of the area and sympathetic to the Victorian era with particular emphasis on the walled gardens and the immediate environs of the buildings. In addition, applicants and current landowner have indicated that they would be willing to accept the revocation of the planning permission in respect of the holiday chalets, the majority of which would be located within the walled gardens and would arguably be unsympathetic additions in this historic environment. However, as indicated in the Relevant History section, the time period for submission of the reserved matters for seven of the units has expired and implementation of the current proposal would preclude conversion of the existing buildings. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to revoke this consent. The restoration of the site as proposed would clearly enhance its appearance and the character of the area in general which is designated as an AONB. Therefore, I consider that proposal is in accordance with policy C2 which seeks to protect and enhance the character of the designated area.

Policy B10 of the Unitary Development Plan is also considered to be particularly relevant to current proposal. The policy seeks to safeguard an historic park or garden or historic landscape of national or local importance from development which would, directly or indirectly, adversely affect its setting. Conversely, the policy would support planning applications for the restoration of historic parks and gardens where they will not adversely affect their character, appearance, setting, amenity and enjoyment, are sympathetic and appropriate to their archaeological and historic interest and do not result in any fragmentation. In this instance, the provision of an additional dwelling at the site, the upgrading of the existing dwelling and the restoration and conversion of the former Orchid House are the mechanisms by which the area would be restored. In the planning brief which accompanies the submission the applicants agent expresses the view that, without the restoration and construction of the residential buildings, this work would be unlikely to take place. This point is reiterated in the conclusion to the brief in which the agent advises that the restoration of the grounds is totally dependant economically on the construction of the two additional dwellings, without which the area would probably degrade further with the opportunity being lost forever or flow into an uneconomic development of holiday units.

The applicants agent expresses the view that the dwelling constructed pursuant to the planning permission granted in 1964 activated the earlier outline consent for three dwellings granted in 1958 and, therefore, this consent remains extant and the further two dwellings now proposed could be constructed pursuant to this approval but in a more sympathetic fashion. Whilst the previous consents clearly form part of the history of the site and are material considerations in determining the current application, I do not consider that, due to the time which has lapsed and changes in legislation, that the conditions of the outline consent granted in 1958 are capable of being complied with and the development cannot be completed.

Whilst it could be argued that much of the Undercliff, which is also within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is overgrown, and is arguably part of the character of the area, I consider that the application site differs in that it is also an Historic Park and Garden of Local Interest. It might also be suggested that other landowners could allow their property to become overgrown and unsightly in order to forward a justification for the approval of a dwelling which would enable them to improve the appearance of the site. However, in this instance, I consider that the circumstances relating to the application site, and in particular its historic value and designation as an Historic Park and Garden of Local Interest, would not be easily replicated and I am satisfied that approval of the application would not set an undesirable precedent or significantly prejudice the policies of the Unitary Development Plan which seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

In considering this proposal, it is necessary to have regard for all material considerations and to balance these against the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Whilst accepting that site is located within countryside, outside any defined settlement, where provision of additional residential accommodation would generally be unacceptable in principle, circumstances may arise where development may exceptionally be permitted. Therefore, whilst proposal may be contrary to one policy of the Unitary Development Plan, it may be justified by another. In this instance, whilst the Policy Officer considers the justification for the proposed development to be minimal, Members may consider that significant weight should be attached to the restoration of a landscape of historic importance and the general improvement in the appearance of the site which would enhance the character of the locality which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In this respect, I consider that proposal complies with Policy B10 which seeks to protect parks, gardens and landscapes of historic interest, Policy C1 which seeks to protect the landscape character of the countryside and Policy C2 which seeks to ensure that, within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, development will not have a detrimental impact on the landscape of the area. Of particular relevance, criteria contained in Policy C2 includes proposals which reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development. Therefore, on balance, Members may consider that the status of the site, the improvement in its appearance and the enhancement of the character of the locality in general are sufficient to outweigh the general policies which seek to resist further development in the countryside.

Under the circumstances and having regard to the justification in this instance for granting planning permission for the provision of additional dwellings in the countryside, i.e. the improvement in the appearance of the site and enhancement of the character of the area in general, I consider that, should Members be minded to approve the application, planning permission should be limited to a period of two years rather than the usual five years. This should ensure that development is commenced sooner rather than later and prevent the site and buildings degrading further.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, whilst the restoration and conversion of the Orchid House to form a dwelling and the construction of an additional dwelling at the western end of the site do not strictly accord with policy, the benefits resulting from the proposal, namely the restoration of a landscape and building of historic interest and the general improvement in the appearance of the site which will enhance the character of the area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, outweigh the policy considerations in this instance. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

No development shall commence on the site until a survey of the development site as existing shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority concurrently with the submission of the site layout drawings and including, as appropriate, the following information at a suitable scale:-

(a) Location, species, girth or stem diameter, accurately plotted crown spread and reference number of all trees on and adjoining the site with a stem diameter of 100 mm or greater.

(b) A numbered tree schedule including an assessment of the condition of all trees on the site together with proposals for surgery or other works, where applicable.

(d) Location, spread and other relevant details of existing hedgerows, hedges and other significant areas of vegetation.

(e) Location and dimensions of existing watercourses, drainage channels and other aquatic features with water, invert and bank levels as appropriate.

(f) Existing boundary treatments and forms of enclosure.

(g) Existing structures, services and other artefacts, including hard surfaces.

Reason: To allow the proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the amenity value of the existing site and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall commence on the site until a detailed survey of, and where appropriate, research data relating to historic landscape features shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority concurrently with the submission of the site survey drawings.

Reason: To allow such features to be accurately recorded and to allow the proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development and to comply with Policy B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant].

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

The landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval shall indicate and provide for the programming and approximate timing of the landscape work in any particular area having regard to the timing of the commencement in that area of any part of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a properly phased manner with a minimum of detriment to the character and amenities of the area and to comply 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 buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

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

Prior to work commencing on site, including site clearance, a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas for a minimum period of 10 years shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping and management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure long term maintenance of the landscaping of the site and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees/shrubs and/or other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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 to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

All material excavated from the site as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall either be disposed outside the site outlined in red prior to completion of the development or shall form part of an approved landscaping scheme. Such scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the time scale to be agreed pursuant to Condition 6.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Application relates to undeveloped area of land situated off northern part of industrial estate which is served off Nicholson Road. Application site is bounded by residential development to north with balancing pond approved on land to west and further industrial development approved on land to east.

Outline application for B1, B2 and B8 industrial estate approved in January 1993 subject to legal agreement. Conditions attached to this consent restricted general industrial use to south western quadrant of site with remainder of land to be used for light industrial and/or storage and distribution use.

On adjoining site to east detailed consent granted in September 2001 for four industrial units. Condition attached to this consent restricted use of northernmost units to light industrial or storage and distribution use.

Application seeks consent for construction of single storey building to be used for pre-school/nursery. Detailed drawings indicate various classroom areas, office and multi-function together with small kitchen area and covered play space. Space around building would comprise appropriately designed outside play areas and flooring together with staff parking and drop-off and turning forecourt fronting highway.

Land comprising industrial estate is zoned for employment use within Unitary Development Plan. Accompanying text advises that this area of land totalling some 5.4 hectares is allocated for B1, B2 and B8 use. Area represents mainly undeveloped section of business park and as site is visible from west and south, attention should be given to design, landscaping and screening when developing site.

Policy G10 - Potential Conflict to Impose Development in the Existing Surroundings.

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

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

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle, but recommends condition be attached seeking approval of detailed scheme in provision of surface water drainage of site.

Initial comments of Highway Officer were that consideration be given to whether location is appropriate bearing in mind national guidance which indicates development inappropriately located away from existing urban areas will over-rely on private car usage for access and transport purposes. This concern could perhaps be addressed by provision of footpath link to residential areas to north of site. More detailed comments are made in respect of parking provision and appropriateness of drop-off area in terms of maneuverability.

Environmental Health Officer is concerned that due to close proximity of external play areas to existing residential premises, unconditional approval may cause disamenity to nearby occupiers from noise. He has requested additional information which has been supplied by agent. Information required relates to intended business hours and hours of play activity outside building and details of extract ducting from cooking areas.

Main planning considerations relate to Development Plan policy and in particular Policy E3, the location of the proposal within an industrial estate, the potential for conflict with adjoining residential property and the relative remoteness of the application site having no direct links to the residential area it serves.

In support of application, agent has submitted detailed description of how premises will operate. Proposal, which is subject to OFSTED registration, is designed for up to 43 children and given current staffing ratio, complex will employ full-time manager, together with eight additional posts which may be full or part-time. Agent advises that proposal will create more employment posts than many of existing premises on site. SEEDA who are currently in charge of the regeneration of this site and creation of local employment have no objections to proposed use either in terms of sustainability or employment creation.

Agent advises that there is a need for affordable child care facilities in area and project has recently been awarded capital funding from New Opportunities Fund - Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative. Multi-function room is proposed to be used for benefit of families within Sure Start Area, again families and children from areas of deprivation and high unemployment. It is hoped that health, education, toddler groups, play sessions for single parents, speech and language therapy and special needs children will all benefit from this local facility. With regards siting, proposed nursery need as expressed by Government within neighbourhood nurseries initiative is to provide formal child care within deprived areas. Proposal meets this need and is fully supported by SEEDA (landowners), New Opportunity Fund (funders) Sure Start Ryde (funders) and the Early Years Development Child Care Partnership as providing suitability facility in correct setting.

Agent advises that vehicular traffic to site will be minimal, as places are to be let only to children within deprived area post codes and visitors will therefore be less likely to be car borne.

With regards to first issue, Development Plan policy seeks in the main to resist development of allocated employment land for other uses. However, there are exceptions to this restrictive policy. These exceptions include a situation where there is identified need for proposed use and no other suitable site is available or fact that loss of site will not prejudice ability of area to meet local employment needs. Proposal can be seen to fall within both these categories and in any event as stated by agent, with possibility of eight new posts being created and full-time manager job generation compares favourably with employment potential for site if it were to be used for light industrial purposes and involves more posts than would be the case were site used for storage and distribution purposes. Additionally, agent has identified need for such use in locality and development of this site between approved attenuation pond and industrial units would have no adverse consequences for further development of industrial estate in general.

In terms of sustainability, whilst site itself is located immediately south of residential locality of Oakfield, there is no direct access to this area and therefore visitors to site will need to access industrial estate from Great Preston Road and Nicholson Road. Distance from Great Preston Road is in the order of 300 metres and whilst this may result in some additional traffic movement, agent advises that majority of visitors to site will be pedestrians.

Additionally, Policy U3 supports provision of community facilities where they are located to meet needs of community they are to serve. Policy does include proviso that such facilities should be easily accessible on foot and by both public and private transport. Whilst there is no direct route to facility proposed, distance involved is not considered in itself excessive and is therefore thought to be reasonably accessible on foot. Agent has verbally advised that potential to link through to adjoining residential development will be looked into should proposal be built.

In terms of potential impact on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers, agent confirms that building is all electric with no gas boiler flues and no major cooking of meals will take place on site. With regards to potential noise nuisance, agent advises that nursery will be open from 0830 to 1800 hours offering full day care five days a week. Generally speaking, children's play time is more structured than at say, school play times and children are in small supervised groups taking part in various activities on climbing equipment or group games with these sessions lasting for between 15 and 30 minutes probably taking place two or three times a day weather permitting. These additional details have been forwarded to Environmental Health Officer for further comment. However, it is felt that generally supervised nature of use will limit potential for disturbance to nearest residential property.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal represents acceptable form of development which can be located without undue detriment to the character and environment of the locality. Whilst in terms of sustainability location is not ideal, given type of use, catchment area to be served and relatively short travel distances involved, it is not considered that this matter is sufficiently serious to warrant refusal of application.

Application relates to land which currently comprises coach parking area immediately rear (north) of the L A Bowl which Members will be aware is located on Ryde Esplanade.

Planning consent and Listed Building consent granted for restoration of Ryde Pavilion and extension to provide tenpin bowling centre in March 1991.

Application seeks consent for construction of skateboard park enclosure together with placing of timber ramps on tarmacadam surface.

Originally submitted proposal involved land immediately north east of existing bowling centre adjacent Ryde Harbour.

Following further reconsideration for proposal revised scheme has now been submitted which shows skateboard park to be located immediately to rear (north) of L A Bowl building.

Skateboard park will have overall dimensions of 30 metres by 20 metres and is shown to be enclosed with 1.2 metre high metal railings.

Revised scheme shows four distinct complexes of ramps within enclosure involving quarter pipes, half pipe, spine ramp and fun box. The tallest of these structures would be half pipe unit totalling some 3.5 metres above ground level. Structures will be finished with railings on top of platforms either end.

As previously mentioned skateboard park would be located on existing coach parking area and whilst western section of this facility will remain available, eastern end will be lost to parking and provide new seating area.

Manual of procedures has been submitted which indicates that similar management plan to that adopted at Seaclose Park will be operated.

PPG17 "Sport and Recreation" advises provision of indoor sport and outdoor synthetic or other surfaces capable of intensive use may help meet demand for sports facilities while reducing pressure on urban open space. Document also advises on need to identify sites that involve noisy sports and minimise conflict with other users.

Within UDP land identified as tourist development area. Policy T7 advises that applications for tourism uses on Ryde seafront will be approved. Appendix to document advises that site has

been extensively developed in recent years including land reclamation to provide ice-rink,

bowling alley, marina and associated development. Also there are still opportunities to develop area for tourism and more specifically for recreational uses to compliment existing facilities.

Site is located within Ryde Conservation Area and Members will be aware of requirement for Local Planning Authorities to protect and/or enhance such areas. Policy B8 reaffirms this position.

Former Ryde Pavilion is also a Listed Building and policy B2 of UDP seeks to ensure proposals do not adversely affect appearance, setting and/or curtilage of such buildings.

The site itself is outside defined settlement boundary for Ryde. Policy G5 advises that development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to rural economy, is well designed and the landscape is of appropriate scale and relates to recreation and sports activity appropriate to countryside. Policy also allows for small scale development ancillary to recreational community development and/or a special event site.

Policy U1 allows for development proposals for health, social and community facilities to be provided where they are within or adjoin development envelope boundaries of the communities they serve.

Of particular importance is policy L2 relating to formal recreation provision which states that applications for new buildings, extensions or improvements to form sports facilities including all-weather floodlit pitches will be approved provided they are located within or adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and there are no unresolvable traffic problems, appropriate conditions limiting hours are applied where necessary and they do not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity.

Text to policy advises that as far as possible sport and leisure activities should be catered for within the communities they serve. Where provision within a defined settlement is not possible however, proposals should be directed to sites adjacent to existing built up areas.

Policy L9 advises applications for use of land for noisy sports may be permitted where they do not adversely impact on sensitive areas including coast and inland waterways, they have main road location, adequate access and do not adversely affect nearby residents.

Policy G10 seeks to take into account potential for conflict between existing and proposed uses.

Car Parks Manager raises strong objection to original proposal on grounds of loss of valuable parking for both cars and coaches and loss of associated revenue to Council. Proposed car/coach park is not a suitable area to have skate park as it is likely that such activity will not take place just within the skateboard park area. Furthermore, Council are experiencing complaints from public of skateboarders using its public car parks for skateboarding. Siting such a park in this area would further compound problems. Finally, it will encourage more children to be in an area where public are paid to leave their vehicles and will be likely to result in more complaints from public.

Highway Engineer, whilst making no formal comment on application, confirm their agreement with comments made by Car Parks Manager.

English Nature confirm that the application site lies adjacent to but out with the designated boundary of the SSSI/SPA/RAMSAR site. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the site.

Operators of L A Bowl object to proposal on grounds that problems are already experienced with large groups of teenagers and youths which gather outside and gain unwelcome entry to their premises. The company has contributed monies towards scheme to install CCTV cameras to surrounding area and have recruited full-time security personnel to control persons using L A Bowl. On numerous occasions they have had cause to telephone police. It is their view that skate park will be abused by teenagers and youths who will congregate an area to cause trouble for a few who may actually use and enjoy facility. They have photographic evidence of disturbances and vandalism caused to other similar operations on Island and they feel that skate park will increase levels of disturbance, vandalism, noise and unruly and aggressive behaviour.

National Federation of Sea Anglers object to proposal on grounds that skate park is to be located on area used as trailer park and will obstruct access to public slipway.

Ryde Inshore Rescue, whilst raising no objection in principle, also comment that proposal will block off only vehicular approach to harbour slipway with insufficient turning space for average trailer and towing vehicle. Although rescue service does not use slipway regularly they do make use of facility in emergency when sea conditions require.

Vectis Boating and Fishing Club also object on grounds of obstruction to public slipway, lack of accessibility will have detrimental effect on viability of club and their new premises and also adversely impact on operation of harbour. They also note loss of coach turning space and potential impact on local market.

One letter has been received from local resident objecting to proposal on grounds of loss of access to public slipway particularly for use by trailers. Writer also refers to potential for disturbance and damage by children attracted to facility.

Hovertravel object to proposal on grounds that boat owners who wish to launch their vessels will be unable to use launching ramp at harbour and fact that new slip situated to north of car park is narrow and steep and therefore larger vessels will be unable to use this. Only alternative will be to attempt to launch from Hovertravel landing area, not a practice to be encouraged.

In respect of revised location all those writers/organisations that have commented on original scheme have been advised of amendment and at time of preparing report no further comments were received.

Main planning considerations relate to impact on appearance and character of Conservation Area and adjoining Listed Building together with implications in respect of crime and disorder and impact on locality in general and nearest residential occupiers.

As advised by Environmental Health Officer, given distance from proposed skateboard park to closest sensitive premises he has no adverse comment to make on application and therefore impact on nearest residential property is not considered to be a major issue in this instance.

Main considerations relate therefore to impact of proposal on character and appearance of Conservation Area and whilst proposal will result in significant feature when viewed in wider street scene, context revised location is considered best available in locality as area will be to a large extent screened by existing building and only readily visible when viewed from Esplanade promenade. Proximity to building will help assimilate proposal into area without any undue adverse visual impact and will allow more intensive use of area of land which, to large extent, is not used to any great extent for its designed purpose of coach parking. To some extent under use of land represents wasted opportunity and application will provide benefit of providing facility for wider community use which should not be underestimated.

Comments of Crime Reduction and Architects Liaison Officer not received at time of preparing report but it is reasonable to assume that provision of facility is likely to lead to reduction in number of incidences in respect of unauthorised skateboarding, particularly in more publicly accessible areas. Facility allows activities to be carried out safely without danger to public and reduces pressure on use of public areas for skateboarding.

In terms of setting of L A Bowl, skateboard park is located in front of least sensitive elevation, i.e. rear, and will not unduly impact on setting of original Listed Building itself, i.e. former Ryde Pavilion.

Members will be aware that there is a need to balance need of community with the effect the proposal will have on the character of the Conservation Area and implications in respect of crime and disorder. On latter matter, Members should be aware that site will be surveyed by existing CCTV unit and such a situation will, it is thought, be likely to minimise potential for disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I consider that location of proposed skateboard park is best available, visual impact on Conservation Area will not be significant and will offer opportunity to provide much needed facility. I am of the opinion therefore that on balance most appropriate recommendation is approval.

Recommendation - Approval (Revised Plans)(Subject to no adverse comments being received by 26 April 2002 that would warrant reconsideration of proposal).

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved with one of those conditions requiring the widening and resurfacing of the existing vehicular access to Staplers Road with no occupation until those improvements have been constructed.

Application is subject of two letters of objection from local residents, points raised being summarised as follows:

Concern that the narrow access onto Staplers Road will be a hazard to road users even despite the modifications being suggested.

Concern that because of the change in levels in respect of the plot this could cause land drainage problems to properties on the lower side.

Any foul drainage should be taken directly to the existing drainage system which serves 187 Staplers Road.

One objector considers that the land adjoins fields and should be considered as countryside and should not therefore be developed.

Proposal will create an additional building line where no buildings currently exist and may set a precedent.

One writer considers existing access track is of insufficient width and is of poor construction or finish being unadopted both to cater for existing traffic without having to accept additional traffic which will be generated by the current proposal. Also proposal will interfere with current enjoyment of the use of the access as a public footpath.

Proposal is likely to create surface water drainage problems with reference being made to the surface water currently draining down the road past existing properties towards Fairlee via the driveways of 183 and 183a Staplers Road.

Additional comments relating to the access onto Staplers Road with reference to the narrowness of the main road for cars to turn into the access and the fact that the access is in close proximity to bus stops adding to difficulties and visibility problems. Also reference made to additional use of the access will increase the risk of accidents and impede the flow of traffic in Staplers Road.

One writer considers that the existing services may be incapable of serving the development.

Application relates to triangular shaped area of rear garden being part of the curtilage of 187 Staplers Road a substantial detached property situated on the north western side of Staplers Road. The western boundary of 187 Staplers Road immediately abuts a gravel access approximately 3 metres in width with grass verges on either side which not only provides vehicular and pedestrian access to four dwellings but is also a public footpath (footpath 119). Overall application property has a frontage onto the access of approximately 83 metres.

Proposal before Members seeks outline consent for a dwelling and garage on a triangular shaped area of land to the rear with application requiring means of access and siting to be considered at the same time. Application indicates a plot which has a 54 metre frontage onto the gravel access as previously described and has a maximum depth of 34 metres narrowing to a point in a northerly direction. Proposal indicates a detached two bedroom bungalow set in the southern part of the proposed plot with a single garage and turning space accessed off the gravel track. Proposal provides for resurfacing of the first 10 metres of the access track with macadam and the widening of that access where it abuts Staplers Road.

There is no planning history in respect of this particular site although Members attention is drawn to the land between 181 and 181a Staplers Road, both being properties which front the access track which was subject of an application for a dwelling and which was refused in July 1999 for reasons of proposal leading to an increased use of the existing access to the classified road Staplers Road adding to hazards of highway users and access being unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width, construction and visibility.

Issues to consider in respect of this proposal relate to suitability of the plot to accommodate a dwelling which would be compatible with the character of the area. The second issue relates to the capability of the access to accommodate additional traffic with particular reference to the applicants proposal to widen the access onto Staplers Road.

With regard to the first issue, whilst recognising that the shape of the plot being triangular does present difficulties in terms of siting of any dwelling, I am satisfied that it is of sufficient size to accommodate a modest single storey dwelling without impacting unduly on adjoining properties and appearing cramped. Amount of land retained to 187 Staplers Road is considered acceptable, compatible with other dwellings of similar sizes in the area.

With regard to the second issue, applicants have included within their application that area of the access out to the junction with Staplers Road and in agreement with the Highway Engineer have indicated improvements to that junction. The Highway Engineer’s comments are self-explanatory.

I would also confirm that the Highway Engineer is aware of the likely precedent that would be set with particular reference to that previous refusal as described above. It will be noted that the reasons related entirely to the unsuitable access junction with Staplers Road and in this regard the Highway Engineer is suggesting that these improvements will be likely to overcome those reasons. I can do no more than accept that situation for not only will the improvements enable a suitable access to be achieved to serve the proposed plot but it will also be of benefit to existing users, providing them with a safer access on Staplers Road.

With regard to any other issues proposal is within but directly abuts the development envelope boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Proposal will result in some loss of shrubbery where the access to the plot is formed, however, I see no reason why the majority of that shrubbery cannot be retained.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I consider that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate a modest single storey dwelling and the improvements to the access junction to Staplers Road enables a safe access to be achieved and I therefore recommend accordingly.

Council's Ecology Officer submitted extensive comments relating to the pond on the site and these are summarised as follows:

Pond, although larger in the past, still holds important breeding population of amphibians; being a natural pond and therefore, its retention is essential.

Any layout should avoid any direct harm to the pond along with retention and management of suitable surrounding habitat which serves as an important refuge as a buffer. Suggests that this should be five times the area of the pond and initial proposal was unacceptable from this point of view.

Reference is made to objectors referring to presence of great crested newts in the pond with Ecology Officer suggesting these may have been present when the pond was larger. However, great crested newts are known to occur in Northwood and as these newts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and also under the Habitats Directive then their presence will influence the layout and design.

Recommends a survey to establish whether or not great crested newts are present on the site with that survey to be carried out by a suitable specialist.

Objectors have referred to range of other species using the area however, Ecology Officer does not believe that any of these introduce additional material constraints to development on the site.

Environment Agency makes reference to the existence of a pond on the site and also refers to the need for an ecological survey of the pond to be carried out for any protected species. They emphasise the need to protect these ecological features.

Agency also makes reference to the need to ensure existing surface water system is capable of accommodating additional drainage and if not, Agency recommends the use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) within the development.

"A hydraulic analysis of the existing sewage network system indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate a foul flow no greater than 0.6 litres per second. The connections can be made downstream of manhole reference 5404. Before any connections are made an application form needs to be completed and approved by Southern Water Services".

"A hydraulic analysis of the existing sewage network system indicates there is sufficient capacity to accommodate a surface water flow of 20 litres per second. However, a storm water runoff no greater than 4 litres per second for all storm conditions can be accommodated downstream of manhole reference 6453. Before any connections are made an application form needs to be completed and approved by Southern Water Services".

Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has visited the site and reports there are two oak trees (60 - 70 years old) on the site and suggests that one would be too close to proposed new dwelling and if they are approved it should be removed. Remaining tree should be retained and have a TPO placed upon it.

Application has been the subject of fifteen letters of objection, eight being from residents of Wyatts Lane, two from residents of Wroxall Close, three from residents of Greenways Close and one each from the Isle of Wight Society and the Northwood Community Forum.

Proposal represents an over development resulting in a density which is inappropriate for Northwood which local residents considered had the status of a village.

Extensive objection to the encroachment of this proposal on to the existing wedge of open space (Council owned) and therefore the loss of amenity that would result.

Concern that proposal would exacerbate the problems caused to pedestrians and other vehicle users by extensive on-street car parking.

Some letter writers suggest that proposal provides insufficient parking on-site.

Proposal will result in overlooking, loss of privacy etc. to properties both in Wyatts Lane and Wroxall Close.

Reference is made to flooding incidents and capability of surface water drainage system to accept additional drainage.

Extensive concern relating to the pond and the wildlife habitat which uses that pond. Objectors do not consider the applicants have addressed the ecological issues and are concerned that if the pond is to be retained how it will be managed in the long term. Also reference is made to the occupation of the pond by great crested newts.

Writers make reference to the removal of trees which both provided amenity value and screening prior to the submission of the application. Also reference is made to the inadequacy of replacement planting.

Concern existing services will be unable to cater for this proposed development i.e. local shops, schools, etc.

Letter writers note that the property 52 Venner Avenue is to be retained however, they are concerned that this could be replaced in the future by at least two, if not three further dwellings.

Applicant has commissioned a report by consultant entomologist with the contents of that report being quoted as follows:

“The pond which measures 8 metres by 4.5 metres at its maximum point had almost 100% of its surface area covered in common duckweed. This has had the effect of making the entire water body very densely shaded to the extent that there was no submerged aquatic vegetation extant. The only emergent vegetation present was composed of two small areas of yellow iris. The depth of water in the pond was shallow, much of it was around 30 cms in depth and the deeper areas were at most 40 cms in depth. The pond floor was comprised deep 20 cms layer of very soft pungent mud.

In terms of aquatic life, large numbers of water-slater were present. These scavenge on decaying vegetable matter and obviously found the thick silt to their liking. A single damson fly larva was noted but no other invertebrate species were found. There was no evidence of fish being present. In terms of amphibians, the pond was found to contain a common frog and a good number of palmate newt.

Main purpose of the survey was to establish whether or not great crested newts were present on site. No specimens of this species were recorded during my search, furthermore I do not feel that the pond in its current state would support a population of this species. The shallowness of the water, lack of submerged vegetation for egg laying and extremely stagnant nature of the pond are all factors that lead me to believe that the pond is unsuitable for the species in question”.

No. 52 Venner Avenue and its curtilage located on the northern side of Venner Avenue having a vehicular access off Venner Avenue across an existing wedge of open space. That access is situated approximately 50 metres east of the junction of Venner Avenue with Wyatts Lane almost midway between that junction and the junction of Venner Avenue with Wroxall Close to the east. No. 52 Venner Avenue is an established dwelling two storeys in height. Site itself did accommodate a row of trees along its eastern boundary although the majority of these trees were removed around Christmas 2001. The site also contains a small natural pond adjacent its western boundary. Finally, there is a electrical substation situated abutting the southern boundary of the curtilage of 52 Venner Avenue with that substation encroaching into the open space area as previously mentioned.

Both Wroxall Close and Horseshoe Close are in the form of a fairly high density development being mainly terrace with some semi-detached whilst the character of the development to the west fronting Wyatts Lane is in the main detached houses or bungalows interspersed with a small number of semi-detached houses. Members are also advised of a large area of open space to the east which has provision for play equipment.

In terms of planning history, in October 2001 application was received for the demolition of the existing dwelling and an outline proposal for twelve houses. This application was the subject of extensive level of representation. It is my understanding that the applicant will not be proceeding with this application and it will be withdrawn in the near future.

Proposal seeks outline consent with all matters reserved apart from siting, means of access and landscaping for the erection of nine units in the form of a block for four terraced houses, block of three terraced houses and two detached, along with the retention of the existing property 52 Venner Avenue. In terms of accommodation, schedule is as follows:

Proposal results in a density of approximately 38 units per hectare (including 52 Venner Avenue).

Bearing in mind the comments made relating to the replacement of 52 Venner Avenue with further additional development if that was in the form of three additional units the density would increase to 43 units per hectare which I suggest represents the maximum that could be achieved. It is more likely that two units would replace the existing dwelling which would result in a density of approximately 40 units per hectare.

In terms of arrangement of dwellings, proposal indicates a terrace of four units having a north south aspect within the northern half of the site with a further three terrace units having a west east aspect with the rear gardens abutting the eastern boundary. These terrace units would face on to a small courtyard area within which are a total of ten parking spaces. The courtyard area to be accessed off a short cul-de-sac which is to be accessed off Venner Avenue and to be laid out to adoptable standard. The access point off Venner Avenue equates approximately to the existing access that is obviously to be widened to accommodate the new cul-de-sac. The two detached houses have been indicated either side of the access with these two units being in the main located on the area which is currently open space as previously described. The detached unit on the eastern side of the access is elongated in shape and set back from the back of footpath to Venner Avenue by a distance of 4.5 metres widening to 5.5 metres. Detached unit on the western side of the access road has been indicated to be a distance of 2 metres off the back of footpath.

Proposal indicates retention of the pond along with retention of a tree within the proximity of that pond. Proposal provides for extensive landscaping within the site along with retention of the two remaining trees along the western boundary within the new rear garden area of property 52 Venner Avenue.

In planning policy terms site is within the development envelope boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan where it relates to Cowes. The substantial area of open space to the east of Wroxall Close and Venner Avenue is defined as open space on that map.

National policies are covered in the main within PPG3 – Housing March 2000. The aim of this important document is to encourage Local Planning Authorities to ensure residential developments provide everyone with an opportunity of a decent home by ensuring greater choice of housing with particular reference to housing not reinforcing social distinction. Document emphasises the following:

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

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

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with specific density minimums being mentioned as follows:

“Encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 – 50 dwellings per hectare net)”.

Face needs of people before ease of traffic movement in designing the layout of residential development.

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages to public transport between housing, jobs etc and reducing the level of parking. More than 1.5 off-street spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government’s emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Members will be aware of the Housing Survey which has recently been carried out and which provides the Council with detailed information relating to Island wide housing needs. This document will enable the Council to establish where the emphasis should be in terms of housing policies and is therefore a valuable tool in justifying the encouragement of developers to provide a greater mix of house types in order to fulfill that need.

The document has identified a greatest need in low cost market housing and in particular to affordable housing for rent. It makes the following statement:

“There is a need for low cost market housing and planning policies and site development we believe should continue to encourage more smaller dwellings to meet current needs and address the shortage of flats and terraced houses in the existing stock.”

Before carrying out a more detailed assessment of the proposal it is important to establish that in the main this is a brown field site within a built up area and therefore the principle of developing the site would be difficult to resist. Therefore, the issues which need to be considered are as follows:

Members will note that the characteristics of the area are well defined being a mixture of high density to low density with the area itself being best described as suburban or urban fringe. Members will also note that the resultant density of this proposal is well within the range suggested within PPG3, i e 30 – 50 units per hectare and this would continue to be the case should there be a future proposal to develop the land on which 52 Venner Avenue stands. There is no sustainable argument in density terms to refuse this application.

In terms of mix of proposals, again the proposal is relatively small in numbers but does provide a mix of two bedroom and three bedroom units. In this regard I refer to the Housing Needs Survey which clearly indicates a need for terraced units with particular reference to two bedroom units. Again this proposal would appear to reflect the needs set out in that survey. Not surprisingly the arrangement of dwellings, although relatively tight, does reflect the current trend towards a semi-courtyard development with the courtyard areas being used for parking. This type of design does provide a sense of place and good levels of surveillance which is the type of development Crime Prevention Officers prefer. Sizes of gardens are fairly minimal, however, similar sized gardens exist both within Wroxall Close development and Horseshoe Close development. With regard to the two detached units, whilst accepting that they encroach upon the open space area they are set at a similar building line to the terrace of units which front Venner Avenue to the east (numbers 44 – 50 Venner Avenue). Also, negotiations have resulted in the units, particularly the unit to the east of the access, being set back as far as possible to still retain open side garden area which will provide visual open space if not usable public open space. These two detached units will provide an entrance to the site and reflect in density terms the lower type of density characteristic of Wyatts Lane.

In terms of the parking provision, proposal does provide a level of parking which entirely complies with the requirements being approximately 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with the two detached units having two parking spaces each. At this level the proposal should not contribute to on-street parking in Venner Avenue although obviously the formation of the new access will take away the ability to park in that road over a section of its length. Members will note that the Highway Engineer is recommending approval to the application.

The main feature of the site is the pond and in this regard Members will note the Entomologist’s report which confirms there are no protected species within the pond. Submitted plans indicate a more formal arrangement around the pond whereas the Ecology Officer is suggesting that this should not be the case and that the pond and its immediate environs should be planted accordingly to encourage further wildlife habitat. I see no great problem with this proposal and if Members are mindful to approve I suggest that this be subject of an appropriate condition. With regard to the pond’s management, applicants are suggesting that this becomes the responsibility of the property owners although they have offered the pond to the Council for adoption making reference to visits by local schools and interested parties as a nature interest. Given that the pond has limited habitat as suggested by the Entomologist this does reduce the ecological value of the pond. It may be that the best way forward is to suggest a further condition requiring a full management programme for the pond.

Other main contentious issue is the loss of the wedge of open space that would occur should this proposal be approved. Obviously the sale of this open space to the developer is a matter for other departments however, the issues relating to planning are relatively clear. Policy L4 seeks to retain areas of open space unless suitable alternative provision is provided. This particular wedge of open space is in the form of grassed area only relatively small in area and provides more visual open space as opposed to usable open space for play etc. It has some importance in terms of the vista when looking eastwards from the junction of Wyatts Lane with Venner Avenue and therefore Members will need to consider whether or not this gives it sufficient importance to resist its loss. The applicant may argue that the creation of the pond and its immediate environs as open space and amenity to this proposed development provides an alternative albeit of a different quality and type of open space provision. One other factor which is of some importance is the substantial area of open space a very short distance to the east which clearly acts as a central community area extensively used by local residents and children. Therefore, the loss of this relatively small wedge shaped area of open space when compared with this substantial area would not be overly significant.

Applicants have adjusted the position of the detached units to keep maximum distance possible off the back edge of footpath, to create visual open space on which they intend to provide extensive landscaping, a facility which does not exist at the moment. Other factor with regard to the open space is that it is currently crossed by an access to no. 52 Venner Avenue being the subject of an appropriate agreement and even if the two detached units were not included in this application additional, albeit a very small area of the open space, will be required to widen the access to achieve an adoptable cul-de-sac access to serve the development. Obviously the feasibility of even this or indeed the scheme currently under consideration will be dependant on the Council selling the land to the developer. In planning terms however, I do not consider that the open space area provides a sufficient level of amenity to warrant resisting this proposal to construct two units on this area as part of an overall development given the circumstances outlined above.

Whilst I recognise the concerns being expressed relating to the ability of existing drainage systems to accept drainage from this site, the comments of Southern Water are self explanatory. These comments do not indicate that this agency envisages a problem in terms of foul drainage and particularly surface water drainage. I have spoken with the Council’s Building Control Department concerning surface water drainage from the houses and they confirm that they would encourage the use of soakaways as a means of surface water disposal, however, this would need to be the subject of a percolation test. The area is a mixture of gravel with underlying clay and it may be the soakaways would be inappropriate. Certainly the existence of the natural pond would suggest that this is the case and therefore the use of sustainable drainage systems may not be possible on this site. This apart however, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that drainage of both foul and surface water from this site is achievable.

The issue of the removal of the trees is clearly regrettable given that they did provide amenity value. Applicants have explained their removal on the grounds that the trees were either diseased or were of a shape which resulted in strong leans in one particular direction making them unsafe. Obviously this information was unconfirmed with the felling of the trees taking place during the Christmas break. This apart however, the trees were not protected. The end result is the retention of two trees which the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer has confirmed are in good order and is suggesting that at least one of them should be the subject of a Preservation Order. My own view is that I consider both these trees should be TPO’d and it may be that consideration be given to some surgery to one of them to off-set their effect on any future developments. Second factor is that the proposal does provide for extensive replanting within the site could be covered by suitable conditions. I would particularly make reference to tree planting along and adjacent to Venner Avenue which, providing appropriate species are used, will provide in the long term good quality amenity value. Similarly the issue of landscaping around the pond could be covered by condition and achieve a good quality ecological area.

Finally, with regard to the general environmental impact of this proposal on surrounding dwellings I am satisfied that distances are such as to ensure no undue overlooking or loss of privacy occurs. Obviously development on this site will change the general character of the area. However, the site is generally level and any overlooking will be restricted to first floor bedrooms which would not be considered to be sufficiently significant to warrant a refusal of the application on these grounds. With regard to general ground conditions, again the Building Control Department are not aware of any major problems with regard to this land in terms of foundation construction and would not anticipate any major problem from this point of view.

In summary, whilst I appreciate that there are a number of controversial issues which have been raised as a result of this proposal none of them contains sufficient weight to warrant a refusal. I appreciate that the loss of the highway verge open space does present some difficulty however, I consider Northwood is well blessed with open space with particular reference to the substantial area of open space to the east. Therefore, on this basis I consider the proposal to be acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that all the issues relevant to this proposal has been addressed and that the proposal represents satisfactory residential development on a brown field site within the development envelope.

6	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	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.
8	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing pond and its immediate surrounding area have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier such as to enclose all parts of the land hatched on the approved plan. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: 1.2 metre minimum height chestnut paling to be as 1722 Part 4 standard securely mounted on 1.2 metre minimum above ground height timber posts driving firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site during which period the following restrictions shall apply: No placement of storage of materials, no placement of storage of fuel or chemicals, no placement or storage of excavated soil, no lighting of bonfires, no physical damage to bark or branches of existing trees within that area, no changes to natural ground drainage in the area, no changes to ground levels, no digging of trenches or services, drains or sewers within the area. Reason: To ensure the pond and its surround is adequately protected from damage throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity.
9	A detailed ecological management plan including long term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for the pond and its surrounding area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. Any such management plan shall include for the planting of native species appropriate to a pond environment and any such planting being retained and maintained thereafter. Any species removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years shall be replaced by species of a similar size as those originally required to be planted. The agreed management plan thereafter shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure the long term maintenance of the pond and its surrounding area as an amenity and potential wildlife habitat.

“The area of land is currently used as a turning area, - the proposed parking area could also fulfill that function, although the occupiers would probably not be too happy about it.

I have no grounds to refuse this application, but would be happier if the parking spaces could be set back by 2 metres and a proper turning head constructed.”

Proposal is subject of two letters of objection from residents of Coronation Avenue, one being from the near neighbouring occupier. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Neighbouring property owner, whilst expressing support for the fact that the land will be maintained, is concerned about the appearance of a house in the line of sight of frequently used upstairs rooms.

Concern is expressed regarding future access for emergency vehicles and also large lorries, including weekly refuse collections in Coronation Avenue.

There is no way out of the bottom of the road, with the nearby farm lane being quite unsuitable and in any event is barred to traffic.

Application site serves as a turning point for vehicles could act as a future link to Medham Road.

Only alternative for larger vehicles is to reverse all the way up Coronation Road onto one of the busiest main roads on the Island.

Application relates to rectangular shaped area of land being approximately 18 metres in width by 73 metres in depth situated on the northern side of Coronation Avenue approximately 250 metres east of the junction of Coronation Avenue with Newport Road northwards. Site is within a row of established dwellings, there being a two storey semi-detached dwelling abutting to the west which has a recent two storey extension which abuts the western boundary whilst abutting to the east is a single storey bungalow dwelling. Coronation Avenue is an unadopted gravel road with no turning facilities. Area is characterised by a mixture of various dwelling types, mainly in the form of two storey.

Outline consent is sought with all matters reserved apart from siting and means of access for a pair of semi-detached houses. Submitted plan indicates a asymmetric pair of dwellings with the dwelling abutting the western boundary in two storey form with hipped roof, whilst the attached dwelling abutting the eastern boundary is in the form of a chalet bungalow design. Initial proposal indicated two parking spaces for each dwelling directly abutting the edge of the footpath. That plan has now been amended to indicate parking and turning area which allows for a 2 metre strip within the plot adjacent to the highway which could function in assisting turning facilities.

Only issue to consider is whether or not the site is capable of accommodating a pair of semi-detached dwellings without appearing cramped in the street scene. Whilst the majority of the dwellings in Coronation Avenue are detached in nature, there are examples of semi-detached houses on similar width plots to the west and I believe that this proposal will sit comfortably within the street scene and will represent a rounding-off of the only remaining gap in the street scene.

The submitted plan indicates how development could take place on this site and be compatible with the two storey house to the west and the single storey bungalow to the east.

Whilst noting the concerns relating to turning space etc for larger vehicles, I consider it would be unreasonable to expect this site to also accommodate a full public turning space which would accord with guidelines. This apart however, the applicants have indicated an amendment to the initial parking proposal which does result in an effective increase in the width for turning by 2 metres which would result in a total width of approximately 13.5 metres which would be available in an emergency situation. I would not anticipate this area being used in any other case than for emergency purposes. The road itself being unadopted and of gravel surface finish has never had the facility of a turning space and this proposal being the last of the infill plots available would not add a significant amount of traffic to warrant a requirement for such a turning space. I consider the applicant has achieved a compromise in amending the parking situation and this is as far as I am able to go in respect of this matter.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider this application is acceptable and therefore I recommend accordingly subject to appropriate conditions.

"Widening the carriageway to 4.8 metres along the frontage of the site satisfies our previous concerns regarding unloading/illegally parked vehicles obstructing general access and access for emergency vehicles. The existing double yellow line could be relocated to the new channel line - this could be conditioned.

I understand that the Fire Officer has concerns regarding whether a fire appliance can negotiate the tight corners in Laundry Lane to get to the site. If that is in fact the case, then the application should be refused though I feel that the Fire Officer ought to demonstrate that the manoeuvre is not possible to assist us in defending an appeal".

"Emergency fire appliance access cannot be achieved throughout the entire length of Laundry Lane therefore must be treated as a dead end condition".

"I have received telephone calls to alert me to the fact that there is concern among residents of Carisbrooke Road who fear they will be overlooked from the rear of the properties of the proposed three new dwellings.

As their elected Member I wish it to be noted that at present a substantial brick wall divides the Unit 4 of Laundry Lane affording them a measure of privacy during business hours. One resident feels strongly that this original construction dating back several centuries should be retained at the very least because of the privacy it affords.

Historically I am told there was once a residential communal laundry and school within the curtilage of these three proposed dwellings. Has that any bearing today?

Another resident has expressed concern of car parking provision and access by larger commercial vehicles.

Finally I wish to be assured by the Chief Fire Officer that fire appliance vehicles and their crews are able to manoeuvre through the 90 degree angle access to the narrow lanes to this point of the proposed development".

Application has been subject of four letters of objection and comment from residents of Carisbrooke Road with points raised being summarised as follows:

Reference is made to the narrowness of access roads Laundry Lane/Bedford Row and whether these are capable of accommodating emergency vehicles with particular reference to the fire appliance.

Proposal provides no parking which surely is impractical and would not work in practice.

Pointed out the number of properties have their doors opening directly onto Laundry Lane straight onto the road which would result in dangers with traffic passing within inches of that door. It is considered that there will be an increase in traffic caused by the proposed residential development.

Application relates to a wedge shaped area of land currently accommodating single storey light industrial buildings located on the north western side of Laundry Lane, a short distance to the south west of the junction of Laundry Lane with Bedford Row. Existing buildings are in a U-shape having an open area centrally located. Immediately to the south west is a group of garages accessed off Laundry Lane. Abutting the rear boundary (north western boundary) are the rear gardens of properties which front Carisbrooke Road whilst almost opposite the site in Laundry Lane is a Scout Hall. There are further rear boundaries of properties in Laundry Lane on its south eastern side, with those properties fronting Trafalgar Road.

Proposal seeks outline consent for residential development with all matters reserved apart from the siting and means of access. Proposal is accompanied by a plan indicating a total of five units, three terrace and two semi-detached, to be located on the site fronting Laundry Lane. Revised proposal indicates the widening of Laundry Lane across the frontage of the site from 3.6 metres to 4.8 metres.

Applicant has supported his application with that supportive statement being summarised as follows:

Applicant acknowledge the narrowness of the access roads but suggests that the development would not make this any worse with there already being domestic properties in the same vicinity. He points out that Bedford Row is reasonably wide and refuse collection takes place at this point adjacent to Bedford Lodge where the road is 4.4 metres in width.

Applicant has submitted an outline section which indicates the position of the proposed dwellings relative to those properties in Carisbrooke Road and the Scout Hall opposite the site. Applicant considers there is reasonable distance to overcome any overlooking problem but does acknowledge the local residents have become used to the high brick wall and which abuts the rear boundary of the site and would, in most cases, like this to stay.

In terms of traffic generation, applicant has been in the ownership of the industrial site for some twenty years during which time it has been used by a number of occupants with a variety of uses from light industry, industrial manufacturing to storage. When the buildings were in full use, for the stores, there would have been at least 2 - 4 vehicle movements per day, per store. With regard to the glazing side of the business three units were being used and there were approximately 25 vehicle movements per day, although at the present time there is probably only 6 vehicle movements per day. Applicant contends that the residential use with zero parking would generate less traffic than the commercial use.

Because of the general poor state of repair of the premises they are difficult to let. Their use has decreased and is decreasing all the time with occupiers moving to more appropriate premises. There is no loss of employment associated with this proposal as most of the premises are now vacant with the current users, the glaziers, wishing to relocate to a much smaller unit in any event. There has been no marketing of these premises mainly because of the lack of facilities and their poor condition.

Applicant consider this is an ideal brown field site for a zero parking scheme given its location close to the town centre. Applicant in offering to widen the road along the frontage suggests that this would enable servicing of the site with the area directly abutting the frontage acting as a loading bay only with parking restrictions applying.

Applicant indicates that every effort will be made to ensure retention of the existing boundary walls, particularly the boundary wall which separates this site from the properties in Carisbrooke Road.

Any properties constructed on here would be anticipated to be traditional small scale modest dwellings, no more than two storeys in height.

In assessing the merits of this application it is important to appreciate the site is a brown field site conveniently located close to the town centre providing good level access to that town centre. Therefore, the proposal for zero parking, particularly in terms of the Zonal Parking Policies is ideal for this site and I would not resist the proposal on these grounds.

Secondly, with regard to impact on neighbouring properties, again I do not consider that the distances involved would result in excessive overlooking and in any event, I would suggest if Members are mindful to approve the application a condition requiring the retention of wall heights, particularly the north western wall, even if this means buttressing walls to support that wall. It is appreciated that five two storey units will have a bigger impact than the current industrial buildings in terms of their height, any overlooking would almost certainly be from bedroom windows only and I would not anticipate the buildings providing any accommodation over two bedrooms.

The major issue with regard to this site is the narrowness of Laundry Lane. I have been in extensive discussion with the Fire Officer on this issue in conjunction with the Highway Engineer and physical measurements of the road width does suggest that Laundry Lane itself is approximately 3.6 metres in width and the comment of the Fire Officer is self-explanatory on the problems that this causes. Whilst I note the comments of the Highway Engineer in terms of the Fire Department carrying out a demonstration, however, a visit to the site clearly indicates that although a fire appliance may be able to manoeuvre itself to the site there is simply no space for that fire appliance to turn. Whilst I accept that a similar situation occurs should the buildings continue to be used for industrial purposes a residential use would differ in terms of occupancy bearing in mind that it could result in 24-hour occupancy thus making it more critical for a fire appliance to be able to attend the site in an emergency situation. Therefore, I have no option but to accept the advice being given relating to access by emergency vehicles, particularly the fire appliance and therefore can only recommend refusal on these grounds alone. I can see no method by which this could be overcome without the applicant obtaining ownership or rights over other land to increase the width of Laundry Lane from its junction with Bedford Row.

I recognise that the density of development proposed is quite high however, it does follow the guidelines contained in PPG3 and if the road access width had been greater then I can see no reason why this proposal could not have been approved.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that although the residential proposal is acceptable both in terms of siting and general principle, it is unacceptable with regard to access with particular reference to access by emergency vehicles such as fire appliance.

Alterations and extensions of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

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

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and the occupiers of the adjoining properties in accordance with the requirements of Policy D1 (Standards of Design) 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 to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed development is out of character with what would be the neighbouring property.

Traffic emerging onto the road would be increased by the new access at what is already a dangerous corner.

The Parish Council have been notified of revised plans and any further comments will be reported.

Letter from Island Watch objecting to application for massive new extension to the house, it is grossly oversized and unsympathetic and inappropriate to Listed building. It would seriously detract from its essential quality and appearance.

Isle of Wight Society register objection to proposed alterations to the property which has a great deal of character and rural charm. Proposed two storey extension annex to the cottage together with new vehicular access will destroy the visual charm of building.

Highway Engineer indicates that the entrance gate ought to be set further back from the highway but if this were the case the parking space could not be used. If the gate is deleted from the scheme then conditions could be applied to the application relating to visibility and site lines and access.

Five letters received from local residents objecting to proposal with matters summarised below:

New access drive could cause problems for traffic flow and vehicles would eventually be left in the roadside.

Proposed extension is out of keeping with present thatched cottage appearance of existing building.

Proposals may cause unforeseen problems to surrounding houses due to site stability. Several properties in the area have undergone extensive underpinning.

The proposed building requiring two storey accommodation gives rise for concern. The thatched cottage is a single storey style building and any roofline that extends into the eye line or above that of the thatch would severely detract from the visual impact of this character property.

Development behind the existing building would overshadow single storey bungalows close to the boundary robbing them of light and privacy.

The property is a Listed building and adds great charm and character to the lower part of Gurnard. If not the oldest, it is certainly one of the oldest thatched cottages in Gurnard and is greatly admired by visitors and locals. To make the proposed alterations and extension to the property would undoubtedly spoil the charm of the property and the surrounding Gurnard marsh area. It is indicated that much renovation work has been carried out and the existing extensions are in an adequate state of repair and do not require replacement.

Proposal would not respect visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding areas and would be contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies regarding standards of development.

The roof covering of the extension would not be in keeping with the existing building.

A letter has been received from the Environment Agency indicating that they are unable to make a full response regarding the application and request a spot level survey or site profile relating the development to the watercourse and finished floor levels within the development. Members are advised that this information has been provided to the Environment Agency and any further comments will be reported.

These applications are for planning permission and Listed Building Consent and relate to a small single storey thatched cottage situated on the western side of Lower Church Road, approximately 50 metres to the south of the junction with Solent View Road.

The building is Listed Grade II and is very small in scale with a hipped thatched roof and natural stone elevations. The property has been subject to a number of alterations and extensions in the past, with a single storey tiled extension at the northern end and a lean-to extension at the rear. The property is set at a lower level than the road with a natural stone boundary wall. There is a vehicular access and driveway to the northern side of the building. The area is characterised by mixed residential development and the application property is of distinctive design due to its age, small scale and use of natural stone and thatch.

UDP Policies D1, H7, B1 and advice in PPG15 are considered to be relevant to these applications.

The proposals under consideration relate to alterations and extensions to the existing structures at the northern end of the building to upgrade and improve the extensions with a further element to include a bathroom and utility area and a conservatory/dining room at the rear. The extensions would be clad with timber boarding under a natural slate and clay tile roof. These elements are small in scale and would result in visual improvement and upgrading of the existing single storey extensions at the northern end of the building.

In addition to the above, the application includes construction of a further extension at the rear of the property close to the southern boundary. The originally submitted plans indicated that this structure would be virtually detached from the main dwelling linked by an external walkway and would provide independent annexed accommodation on two floors comprising a living room/bedroom with a gallery bedroom above.

As a result of concerns expressed regarding the size, design and nature of the proposed accommodation, revised plans have been submitted relating to this element of the proposal showing the accommodation integrally linked to the existing property with reduction in the accommodation to omit the first floor element and this extension would now provide a living room with a small shower room/toilet at ground floor level only. Whilst it is accepted that this extension would be close to the southern boundary of the property, it would be set behind the main building and would partially replace an existing bedroom and bathroom lean-to extension which provides poor accommodation and would be demolished.

The revised details show the roofline reduced by approximately 0.6 metres which would now be significantly lower than the existing thatched roof of the cottage and, as it is set well back from the main frontage, I do not consider this would be unduly prominent either in relation to the character and appearance of the existing building or in the locality as a whole, and being single storey accommodation with no windows facing the boundary, I do not consider this would significantly adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of the nearby property.

The application also includes provision of a new vehicular access and parking area to the garden area in the south eastern corner of the property and Members will note that there have been local comments regarding the suitability of a vehicular access at this point. The Highway Engineer has commented that the provision of a gate could obstruct the use of the parking area and suggests that provided the gate is omitted and subject to conditions regarding visibility and construction of the access, there would be no highway objection to this proposal. The applicant's agent has confirmed that the proposed gate will now be omitted from the scheme thereby conforming with the Highway Engineer's comments.

With regard to comments received about land stability, Members are advised that the site lies outside the area covered by the Coastal Slope Stability Study and Planning Guidance for the Cowes and Gurnard area prepared on behalf of the Council. The applications relate to alterations to the existing residential property and to an extension at the rear. Although this would constitute some additional development within the plot, it does not extend beyond the area defined by existing buildings in the locality and I do not therefore consider there would be any overall site stability implications to this limited form of development and the foundations for the extensions themselves would be controlled under the Building Regulations.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details now under consideration show a significant reduction in the overall scale and visual impact of the proposed extension which is now considered to be subservient to the main property and would be sympathetic to the historical value of the Listed building. The accommodation would no longer comprise an independent annex but would consist of additional living accommodation for the main dwelling. The additional works would improve the appearance of the existing extensions to the property which would now also be in character with the Listed building. The proposed additional access to Lower Church Road would conform with the Highway Engineer's requirements and having taken account of all other comments received and matters raised, including comments regarding land stability and impact of the development on other residential properties, I am of the opinion that the revised details now under consideration would be acceptable and would accord with Unitary Development Plan policies D1, H7, B1 and advice contained in PPG15 regarding alterations and extensions to Listed buildings. The applications are therefore recommended for approval.

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

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

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved in respect of submission of full engineering details, including structural calculations of the width, alignment, construction, gradient and drainage of the access driveway; that the access is constructed before any dwelling is occupied; provision of a turning space and provision of a pedestrian access to the public bridleway. Highway Engineer points out there may be a need to extend waiting restrictions on the east side of Landguard Manor Road even as a temporary measure during the construction works and requesting that the developer is made responsible for costs of any traffic regulation orders.

Rights of Way Officer raises no objection but points out that the development abuts a public bridleway and that any effects on the right of way should be satisfactorily addressed.

Shanklin Town Council object to the proposal on grounds of inadequate access and raised concerns about traffic safety.

Council's Tree and Landscape Officer points out that there are a number of preserved trees on the site; that the originally submitted scheme would have resulted in the destruction of several of those trees and prejudice to others. Observations in respect of the revised scheme have been received confirming the development could be carried out with adverse effect on the preserved trees.

Twenty nine letters of objection of which twenty three are standard letter but signed by individuals on grounds of highway dangers and dangerous access; access too close to a bend; too narrow an access for vehicles to pass; a history of accidents in the vicinity; loss of on street parking; loss of habitats; erection of large houses which would not be affordable for local people; backland development, over development and a cramped form of development.

An irregular shaped site located on the west side of Landguard Manor Road opposite its junction with Green Lane. The site has an area of approximately 0.48 of a hectare, is irregular in shape with a narrow access track leading between number 2B and 4 Landguard Manor Road, currently part of the garden area to number 4. The access falls steeply away from Landguard Manor Road and then rises slightly to the bulk of the site which is bounded by part of the rear gardens of number 12 Landguard Manor Road on its north and west sides.

The south western boundary of the site abuts the bridleway which leads from Landguard Manor Road to Ninham Farm and Scotchells Brook. The land contains some substantial, mature trees of several species mostly close to the boundaries. The site has been assimilated by including the rear gardens of several properties therefore, boundaries between some are unmarked but extensive details submitted with the application show the formation of the access road running along the southern side of number 4 Landguard Manor Road, turning in a north westerly direction towards the centre of the bulk of the site and incorporating a turning head with the five, detached properties arranged around it.

The length of the access road is shown as approximately 100 metres and a section through it shows it dropping a maximum of 5.1 metres at a point close to the turning head, although the level of the turning head would be almost at existing ground level, about one metre above the lowest level of the road. Due to the extreme levels the road would be formed by the construction of a raised structure, incorporating a passing place midway in its length.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, matters relating to road safety, affect on adjoining properties and affect on preserved trees.

This site of almost 0.5 of a hectare is within the designated development envelope and surrounded on three sides by residentially used land. In the spirit of the utilisation of using under used land for new development, especially where it is within the designated development envelope, this proposal accords with policy and is supported. Whilst this is a low density development, the access road would not be appropriate to serve a greater number of dwellings.

The access to the site is via a narrow tract of land and the technical specification regarding width, drainage, gradient, radii and visibility appear from the Highway Engineer's advice to be acceptable.

The site is one which could be described as being a backland location but due to the numbers of dwellings involved and their distance from adjoining properties, I do not consider that such a proposal could be refused on the basis of unacceptable backland and I do not consider such a development would have an adverse effect on the amenities of the adjoining properties. The closest distance to any adjoining residential property is 35 metres from building to building although distances to adjoining properties boundaries are significantly less, in the order of 4 metres. The distances involved are so great that I do not consider the development could be described as being cramped although it is acknowledged that the dwellings would be fairly close to each other in an intimate cul-de-sac.

The distance from preserved trees now has changed in the revised plans to a minimum distance of almost 10 metres from dwellings but the distance from the roadway to preserved trees is down to about 7 metres as a minimum.

Following the latest revision to the layout of the road, the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has reinspected the site especially with regard to the preserved trees and has concluded that so long as the levels remain as shown and that the access can be formed above ground level without too much compaction, then it is possible that the driveway will not damage the trees significantly. During construction works the preserved trees should be fenced to prevent damage and accordingly recommends approval subject to conditions in respect of a comprehensive landscaping scheme and the provision of protective fencing during building operations.

In summary a provision of the raised access road to serve the five dwellings at the rear has raised difficulties which, by negotiation appear to have been overcome, namely difficulties with access and effect on preserved trees. Subject to appropriate conditions approval is now recommended.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the use of this backland site, assembled from several parcels will utilise presently underused land situated in a residential area, within the development envelope for a limited number of dwellings served by an access road between existing residences. Bearing in mind the scale of the development it is felt that the resultant properties will not be detrimental to the existing residences they adjoin and will not prejudice the future of the preserved trees on site and is therefore consistent with policies D1 and D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees and shrubs not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. 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.

(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.

In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use).

(a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work);

(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Environmental Health Officer advises that as development has potential to adversely affect amenities of neighbouring property he requests attachment of appropriate conditions should consent be granted. These conditions relate to ensuring no waste nor foodstuff or other material is stored or deposited outside buildings and secondly, no manure shall be burned on site but disposed of in an agreed manner.

Ramblers Association have commented that several answers on application form are incorrect particularly in respect of access and public rights of way to site. They object to proposed development on grounds as follows:

Access to site appears to be along public footpath with horse boxes and horses seriously disturbing surface of footpath making it difficult for pedestrians.

Use of footpath system to deliver animal feed, again resulting wear and tear on footpath system.

Increase encouragement for other footpaths and areas to be used by horse traffic.

Application as originally advertised has attracted twenty letters of objection. These objections can be summarised as follows:

Potential nuisance from flies, rodents and associated smells resulting in health risk.

Potential use of access and in particular footpaths being used by cars and horse boxes.

As a result of readvertisement of proposal clarifying access to site, sixteen letters were received, again objecting to proposal on similar grounds to those outlined in previous paragraph.

One letter has been received raising no objection to proposal with writer advising that he fully understands requirements of usage of land as part of owner's business strategy and as such would prefer horses and stabling to any other form of animal buildings on site.

The Ramblers Association have submitted a further letter which, whilst advising that revised application now shows rights of way on drawing and clarifies ownership boundaries, their comments and objections are unchanged.

Rights of Way Section of Council advise that revised application shows additional information supplied by applicant which confirms his ownership of land over which rights of way run and that stabling will be used in conjunction with Brickfields complex. Ownership of land does not confer and automatic right on a landowner to introduce further private traffic over rights of way. Once paths have been dedicated to public for use on foot and horseback the surface is vested in the Highway Authority and all use is regulated by legislation. The Highway Authority would have a duty and power to act to assert the public rights. Even if the landowner had vehicular rights over a particular route within the dedication his use of them might nevertheless constitute a statutory or common law nuisance in certain circumstances.

This would be the situation with day to day management. In this case the issue is clearer, since traffic would be new movements generated by new development. Rights of Way Section are strongly of the view that development should not be permitted because the access is inadequate and depends solely on routes already in use as public paths. This could cause serious adverse effects on public rights which the Council as Highway Authority has a duty to protect.

If there is any question of proposal being permitted it will be important to impose a condition that the stabling should not be sold off separately from Brickfields as it would be far more difficult to deal with any adverse effects on rights of way if a number of different owners were involved.

Comments of Rights of Way Section have been considered by Council's Senior Solicitor who has been involved in considerable research on this matter including searches obtained from Land Registry. Her considered view is that there are no rights even given to or reserved for applicant or his predecessors in title with regards to vehicular access along Isle of Wight Council footpaths and bridle ways. These are in the ownership of the Council even if it is only the topsoil and Council are responsible for them and have dedicated them as they saw fit.

From definitions within Section 329(1) of Highway Act it is clear that the terms bridle way and footpath grants specific rights but excludes others. Right of way by vehicle is not specified in either of the two definitions.

The Legal Services Section of the Council therefore support the opinion of the Rights of Way Section and in their view, ownership of subsoil does not confer an automatic right on the landowner to introduce further private traffic over dedicated rights of way.

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of development in rural location and in particular its visual impact and matters relating to means of access.

In respect of UDP policy, policy G5 allows for development outside defined settlements connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities, recreation and sports activities appropriate to countryside, appropriate small scale rural tourism development and/or appropriate small scale development to create or sustain rural employment.

Policy C1 seeks to protect landscape character in countryside. More specifically policy C23 advises that in respect of applications for stables and field shelters for recreational purposes such development will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming visual amenity, are of small scale and of a design and construction appropriate for the location and conditions and/or legal agreements are applied to prevent incremental development, such as feed stores, tack rooms, shelters, caravans etc. Text also advises Council seeks to limit proliferation of buildings in countryside, however, need for shelter for houses is recognised. Policy C24 deals with extensions to existing commercial riding establishments which will be approved where it involves reuse of existing farm complex or group of farm buildings, minimises impact on adjoining residential occupiers, will not result in unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles on nearby road network and they have direct access to rights of way network.

Briefly, application as revised seeks consent for construction of stable block measuring 22.75 metres long by 9.75 metres wide having heights to ridge of some 4.5 metres. Building would comprise two store rooms, two tack rooms and eight stable units and be constructed in dark stained horizontal timber cladding under slate grey plastic coated steel cladding roof. Building, which would have north-south orientation would be located immediately adjacent public footpath R41/40, a minimum distance of some 50 metres from rear boundary of nearest residential property in Bourne Close.

Given the extent and scale of 'horsiculture' within area, whilst proposal does result in some additional increase in sporadic development in locality is not considered reasonable to resist proposal on this ground alone.

Furthermore, given comments of Environmental Health Officer of use involved and distance to nearest residential property, providing appropriate conditions are attached to any consent it is not felt that building itself and associated usage will have any undue detrimental impact on amenities of nearest residential property.

Main consideration in this instance is means of access to application site and the appropriateness of such access to service usage proposed.

Members will appreciate that application site is served only by public footpath system and as advised by Rights of Way and Legal Services Sections of this Authority ownership of land does not confer right on landowner to introduce further private traffic over rights of way. Stable complex is relatively remote in terms of distances to either internal access tracks or nearest bridle way (38) which routes across Dame Anthony's Common. Given this situation, operators of stable block would not be legally entitled to ride to and from building on local footpath system and would not be able to gain vehicular access to premises. Not only would this cause significant difficulties in day to day operation but would obviously present difficulties in respect of initial construction period and ongoing problems relating to delivery of food stuffs such as hay, and potential difficulty in complying with any conditions which may be attached to consent, for example, relating to storage and regular removal of waste from site.

Given potential legal difficulties in accessing and servicing the application site, I consider that this aspect of proposal represents a serious planning objection and accordingly application is recommended for refusal.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report it is considered that the inappropriate access to the site represents a fundamental objection to the proposal and accordingly I consider that application should be refused and recommend accordingly.

This application was scheduled to be considered under the delegated procedure but is before Members for consideration at the request of the local Member.

Godshill Parish Council oppose the continual infill on this estate and recommend refusal to this application on grounds of over development; that the existing services are unable to cope with any extra calls on them; congestion from parked vehicles.

The existing dwelling is one of a pair of semi-detached houses located on the right angle bend of Moorview, situated towards the north east of the estate. The existing property has a substantial curtilage, overall dimensions of 47 metres long and an overall width of nearly 20 metres although the site is somewhat irregular in shape. To the east of the dwelling there is an access and frontage onto Moorview and a block of four garages and forecourt. Properties in the area are a mixture of terraced, semi and detached dwellings built in the 1960's and mostly constructed of artificial stone and facing brickwork under concrete tiled roofs.

This proposal seeks to add a dwelling to the western end of the pair of semi-detached houses making a terrace of three. The dwelling proposed is of similar but slightly smaller proportions than the existing but includes a large garage on its western side, almost abutting the highway. The new dwelling would be approximately 3.5 metres from the back of the pavement, the garage, considerably closer, approximately 0.7 metre at its closest point. Dwelling to have overall dimensions of 5.3 metres in width and 7 metres in depth, two storeys comprising lounge, kitchen and dining room on ground floor with two bedrooms and a bathroom on first floor. Constructed in facing brickwork under a concrete tiled roof, both to match the existing. New PVC weather boarding proposed on first floor of front elevation.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, size of site and relationship with existing properties, density, layout and access arrangements.

Site is within the development envelope and therefore in principle there are no objections. In terms of the site's size and general density, this is considered compatible with existing terraces in the vicinity and despite the "conversion" of this pair of semis to a terrace of three, the character of development is considered consistent. In design terms, the proposed dwelling is similar to those adjoining and therefore a compatible form of development would result.

In access terms, the Highway Engineer has advised conditions to be imposed if approved, indicating that there is no sustainable reason for refusal in terms of either highway safety or parking and suggests that conditions in respect of visibility and crossing of the highway footway only should be imposed.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations as included in the Evaluation section above, the addition of a single dwelling in this location on this modern estate would result in a compatible form of development consistent with policies D1 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(n) TCP/2425S Unauthorised Holiday Accommodation, Puckaster Farm, Puckaster Lane, Niton, Isle of Wight.

To consider circumstances surrounding two unauthorised holiday units formed within former agricultural outbuildings and whether or not the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice.

At the end of November 2001 I was made aware of the fact that there may be a number of unauthorised holiday accommodation units at the above location. Although retrospective planning permission was granted for a single holiday accommodation unit in January 1999 it was suggested that there was more than one unit in operation.

On 20 December 2001 a meeting was arranged with the owner of the site at which time an Officer from the Planning Enforcement team together with a Building Control Officer visited the site. The outbuildings were inspected and the situation discussed with the owner. It was confirmed that two unauthorised holiday units had been formed within the outbuildings. Each unit consists of three bedrooms with a lounge/kitchen area. One of the units has a single W.C. whilst the second unit has two showers and a W.C. Most of the work involved in the conversion has been internal although some external work has taken place. It was confirmed that all the waste-water from these two units, together with the other holiday unit that was approved in January 1999, ran to the septic tank which serves the residential property on site.

Operator was given time to submit retrospective application and this has now past. Whilst certain information has been forthcoming application has been invalidated since mid March 2002.

The site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. At the present time, there are no indications of any agricultural activity being undertaken on the land associated with this farm.

Regarding planning policy, the Council has basic planning policies seeking to protect landscape character (Policies C1 and C2). Policy C15 which refers to appropriate agricultural diversification suggests that any proposal should be supported by a whole farm plan to show that the enterprise proposed will be well integrated with the existing operations and is likely to provide a long term source of employment and income to support the business as a whole. Policy C17 promotes the conversion of barns and other rural buildings for employment, recreation or tourism proposals subject to a number of criteria. There are a number of policies in the plan in the Tourism section which promote tourism i.e. T9 (Small Scale Rural Tourism Development). Policy TR7 requires any new development to provide safe conditions for all road users, whilst Policy G7 states that development within areas of known or possible land instability will only be approved if the scheme does not add to the instability problems.

Whilst I acknowledge that supporting tourism is important for the Island, this is not at the expense of all other considerations. Access to site is via Castlehaven Lane which is narrow and with a poor surface. Notwithstanding reduction in vehicle movement associated with farm I believe there is likely to be more traffic associated with holiday use. As well as serving Puckaster Farm this track also serves a number of other residential properties. I have also taken the opportunity of speaking to the Coastal Manager who expresses concerns regarding the current method of wastewater disposal but this problem is resolvable. However, that solution is not without its problems and could involve even greater use of the substandard access. Clearly the use of a septic tank in this location is inappropriate.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the two unauthorised holiday units and the removal of all the furniture, fittings and internal partition walls with a time period for compliance of 3 months.

2. Not to serve an Enforcement Notice regarding the unauthorised conversion of the outbuildings into two additional holiday units.

There appears to be no agricultural activity taking place on the adjoining land and the owner has been letting the adapted outbuildings as holiday units. This includes both the authorised unit and the unauthorised unit. I can understand why the owner is seeking to derive an income from his property but this should not be to the exclusion of other considerations that have a wider public interest.

Whilst recognising the tourism contribution I believe that the operation of the proposal is contrary to the policies of the UDP specifically G7 and TR7, and as such cannot be supported. Accordingly, I believe the only option is to take Enforcement Action.

The purpose of this report is to make Members aware of the planning history of the site, its current use and to consider what the Local Planning Authority’s response should be in respect of current operation of yard.

Site relates to marshalling yard surrounded by Castle Street, Link Road and Ferry Road with entrance gained via latter highway. Site is used for ferry traffic, parking and/or involves traffic crossing Castle Street, Trinity Car Park to await ferry embarkation. Northern site corner of site previously contained The Star Public House which has now been demolished to enlarge car parking area.

In terms of planning history, consent issued in June 1994 for use of land for relief marshalling of cars over seasonal peak periods and construction of vehicular access point onto Ferry Road and Link Road. Condition attached to that consent restricted use of marshalling yard for that of motor cars only.

Subsequent application sought consent to vary condition attached to earlier consent restricting yard to that of marshalling motor cars. Application was approved in August 1997. Application site outlined red included all land within current car parking area except for those buildings, ie public house and nos. 13 and 15 Ferry Road which were subsequently demolished. This consent allowed parking for commercial vehicles between the hours of 0800 and 2100 and restricted such commercial parking to the northern half of the site where it fronts Link Road.

In March 1999 consent granted for the demolition of buildings, ie The Star Public House and nos. 13 and 15 Ferry Road and use of land as marshalling area in connection with adjoining Phoenix Yard. Again, condition attached to this consent restricted use of application site to marshalling of motor cars only.

Most recently proposal seeking to vary restrictive condition attached to 1999 consent was considered by Members at the meeting held on 4 September 2001. At this meeting Members resolved to refuse consent on grounds that continued use of site for marshalling of commercial freight vehicles resulted in significant loss of amenity detrimental to occupiers/operators of adjoining properties particularly by reason of noise, general disturbance and operational hours. Further recommendation agreed required letter be sent to applicants advising them that should lorry parking not cease within two months, then enforcement proceedings would be instigated seeking to rectify breach of planning control. Letter was duly sent on 12 September 2001.

Following this decision, meeting was held with Red Funnel and their legal representative seeking to clarify and resolve planning situation regarding use of yard. Situation is complicated in so far as previous decisions on this site have related to various parts of both existing and proposed car parking areas and are subject to different restrictive conditions. Whilst 2001 refusal sought to allow entire Phoenix Yard site to be used for marshalling of commercial freight vehicles, operators refer to earlier consent and are of the view that they have a legal right to operate under earlier planning consent as a fall-back position. They also refer to earlier meetings and subsequent correspondence and are of the view that they are legally entitled to use two centre lanes through the site for HGV parking. Whilst respecting decision of Council to refuse most recent application, company advise that they have instructed drivers to only use these two lanes overnight when operational requirement dictates.

Correspondence received from local resident includes details of a typical weeks log of lorry activity in this car park. Documentation is accompanied by photographs which show trailer parking on site. Whilst concerns of writer are understandable given potential for disturbance and noise nuisance particularly throughout night, it will be a difficult exercise involving legal interpretations to assess whether or not there is any breach of planning control given previous decisions on this site and operator’s claim to fall-back position. Whilst Council could reach a view on legal position, this would involve considerable time and resources and whilst this situation is obviously not a factor in determination of whether enforcement action should be taken in this instance, Members should be aware of further negotiations my office has had with the company and likely developments in near future which may have direct implications for current operation of parking area.

For Members’ information, company is actively seeking alternative location on outskirts of East Cowes for provision of lorry/trailer park which if successful, would be very likely to remove commercial parking from Phoenix Yard itself. It is understood that formal planning application will be submitted in very near future and whilst application itself would be subject to consideration of planning merits, any issue of planning consent could provide opportunity to control use of this site through associated planning obligation subject, of course, to negotiation with operator.

Given continuing use of yard for lorry parking, whilst Members have the option to instruct that further investigation and research into the legal situation concerning alleged breaches of planning control be carried out, given likelihood of application in near future which may provide opportunity to remove problem from site in its entirety, Members may take the view that it would be appropriate to allow further period of time in which to submit a planning application for lorry/trailer park in alternative location which may assist in rectifying/clarifying.

1. To take no immediate action regarding an investigation into alleged breaches of planning control on the understanding that the operator will submit a planning application for an alternative siting of the lorry/trailer park within two months. Should that application not be received in that time frame then enforcement action be authorised commensurate with the alleged breach.

2. To proceed with a formal investigation into the legally authorised use of the site and take appropriate action accordingly.

Assessing the planning history and legal interpretations on the authorised use of the site is particularly complex and would involve considerable resources. Whilst Authority cannot condone any breach of planning control in respect of the site if identified, Members may take more realistic view that formal investigation should be held in abeyance pending the submission and outcome of a planning application which may well remove commercial use from this site.

In the circumstances, I believe it appropriate to give the operator a period of time with a clear deadline to submit an application for the alternative siting of this lorry/trailer park and provide opportunity for Members to control in more certain terms operation of Phoenix Yard. I would suggest that a two month period which would allow for the submission and determination of the planning application.

To determine whether an Enforcement Notice should be served on the owner of Sheep Lane Farm requiring him to cease residential use of four caravans and two mobile homes and remove four of the six units from the land, leaving one in the position of Unit B and one in the position of Unit C as shown on the attached plan.

In May 1993, Officers from the Councils’ Planning and Housing Department visited Sheep Lane Farm and found three caravans on site. Two of the caravans were sited in the approximate position of Units B and C on the attached plan, they appear to have been on site for some time and were in a fairly derelict condition, they did not appear to be habitable. The farmer, who was present, pointed out that nobody could live in them in this condition.

Further uphill, on the edge of the farmland, was a fairly small caravan and although there were no services connected to it, there were some clothes inside. The farmer said that a man had stayed in it for a few days having come to shoot foxes who were killing lambs. A few weeks later, information was received that a man was living on site but this was not thought possible as the caravans had just been checked.

In March 1997, the Enforcement Officer went again to Sheep Lane Farm and found two caravans/mobile homes one of which was an old green and cream caravan which had been on site in 1993. These two units were in approximately the same position as the 1993 ones, that is position B and C on the attached plan. Both units were being used for residential purposes.

A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the farmer which was eventually returned after a threat of prosecution, and correspondence with his solicitor. The farmer stated in the Planning Contravention Notice that occupied caravans had been on site since 1971 and claimed that one of the current occupants had been on site for ten years, and the other for three.

On 23 October 2001, Officers from the Council’s Planning and Housing Departments called at Sheep Lane Farm and found five caravans and mobile homes in the vicinity of the cluster of farm buildings, as indicated on the attached plan. There was also a caravan further up the hill, said to have been occupied until a month before our visit, this caravan is referred to as Unit F on the attached plan. Unit A was the old green and cream caravan then standing empty. Unit B was occupied by one male, Unit C was occupied by one male, and Unit D by one male. Unit E was said to have been occupied by two lads until a month prior to our visit. There was a general lack of facilities on site, and conditions were squalid.

The farmer was seen the same day and confronted with the evidence, again he claimed established use on some of the units. A letter was written to him in November 2001 regarding this matter, to which he did not respond. A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the farmer in January 2002, and he named three persons living on site and claimed that the caravans had been on site for thirty years.

On 18 March 2002, an Enforcement Officer accompanied by the Council’s Senior Solicitor, called at Sheep Lane Farm by appointment to interview the farmer, but he failed to appear and the site was totally unattended, but had the same appearance as at the time of the October visit.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the residential use of all caravans and mobile homes on site and the removal of four of the six units from the farm leaving two units in the positions B and C on the attached plans. Time for compliance six months from when the notice takes effect. If any of the current occupants leaves prior to the end of the six month period, they are not to be replaced.

2. Not to serve an Enforcement Notice in respect of the caravans/mobile homes at Sheep Lane Farm.

It appears that the landowner has deliberately misled the Council and has now escalated the problem by producing more caravans and mobile homes on site. I believe that the only way to resolve this situation is to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the residential use to cease. If this is contested in whole or part it will require the landowner to produce evidence to back up his claims. It is clear that some of the caravans and mobile homes have been on site for less than ten years and their removal can therefore be required. The siting and residential use of caravans and mobile homes on this site is contrary to policies S4, which states that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development, G1 – development will be expected to be located within settlements, H9 – Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries, H12 – Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans, C1 – Protection of Landscape Character and C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

As some of the caravans are clearly being used for residential purposes, there are clear Human Rights issues which have to be considered and weighed by the Committee. Your Officers have considered the issues and are of the view that the recommendation for enforcement is still the advised option. In coming to this recommendation, 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; whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to commence enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant and the residents within the property, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the applicant and the residents, it is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedoms of others. The policy objections stated in respect of the continued use of the property are those encompassed in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the current use could remain even by imposition of conditions. It is also considered that enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use of all caravans and mobile homes on site and the removal of four of the six units from the farm leaving two units in the positions B and C on the attached plans. Time for compliance six months from when the notice takes effect. If any of the current occupants leaves prior to the end of the six month period, they are not to be replaced.

(d) TCP/16974F Unauthorised engineering operation, at Pitts Farm, Main Road, Ningwood

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of a large amount of topsoil which has been used to artificially raise the level of the land at Pitts Farm, Main Road, Ningwood.

On 21 June 1989 an Enforcement Notice was served on the owner of Pitts Farm, Ningwood for using the premises for the storage of tree trunks and as a contractor’s yard. He was required to cease the storage of tree trunks and the use of the premises as a contractor’s yard and to remove all tree trunks, branches, piles of chalk, concrete, rubble, ballast, topsoil and subsoil.

On 4 March 2002 the Enforcement Officer (West) was informed that the owner of the land was using the site as a soil storage depot in connection with his agricultural contractor’s business. On 8 March 2002 the Enforcement Officer visited the site and found a huge pile of topsoil taking up the whole central section of the site. He contacted the owner, pointing out the planning history and that the current use is a breach of planning control. The contractor asked if he could have until the end of March to remove the topsoil and was given this concession. On 5 April 2002 the Enforcement Officer met the owner of the property on site and found that although some of the topsoil had been removed, a large amount had been deposited on the upper part of the site in an engineering operation to artificially raise the height of the land. The levels appeared to increase by a minimum of about 0.75 metre and in the centre could have risen to a level approaching 2 metres. The owner of the land was told that this was unacceptable and that a report would be submitted to the Planning Committee to authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of this soil.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the topsoil from this land and restoration of the land to its former level. Time for compliance – one month from when the notice takes effect.

This unauthorised work does nothing to maintain and protect the landscape in accordance with Policy C1 and in fact is detrimental to the character and amenities of the area in general and to adjoining residential occupiers in particular. The landowner has offered to remove the topsoil which has been used to raise the level of the land, but I feel that no reliance can be placed on this verbal assurance and I believe that the service of an Enforcement Notice is necessary to put in place a timescale for the removal of the topsoil.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the topsoil from this land and restoration of the land to its former level. Time for compliance – one month from when the notice takes effect.

The purpose of this report is to appraise Members of an ongoing complaint regarding works at the above property and to consider whether or not any of the development undertaken should have required the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Tideways Cottage is the former railway level crossing keeper’s property which is located on the northern side of the Causeway. On the north and western sides it abuts the former railway line which is now used as a cycle track. Although the cottage abuts the highway its grounds run in a north easterly direction alongside the cycle track extending some 0.38 hectares in area. To the south east beyond a dog legged boundary is Afton Thatch, a residential property.

The planning history shows an approval for alterations and extensions in March 1980 with a further application for a change of use from dwelling to restaurant refused January 1983.

In November 1996 the Local Planning Authority received a letter expressing concern over the condition of the grounds at Tideways Cottage. The letter contained the following paragraph:

“For the last few years the owners of Tideways …. has not been living at the property but has been letting it as a holiday cottage. Since that time he has allowed the previously cleared land to become derelict and overgrown with brambles, tangled undergrowth, trees and seeded scrub, which is obscuring my light. Only a small area is kept under control for the use of his holiday visitors”.

This situation was assessed by one of the Enforcement Officers but it was not considered that the appearance of the ground justified action under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the site to be cleared of undergrowth.

The most recent application approved in March 2000 was for alterations and extensions to form living room, utility room, w.c. and boiler room and retention of relocated shed.

At the beginning of 2001, the Local Planning Authority began to receive what was the first of a series of letters alleging breaches of planning control at Tideways Cottage. These have been directed at the Development Control Section, the AONB Project Office and the Local Member for the area. The alleged breaches are as follows:

7. Failure to comply with landscape screening condition on 2000 planning consent.

Before considering each of these alleged activities Members should note that whilst the property does lie within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest, neither of these designations fundamentally exclude any development whatsoever. In that context the AONB designation is a further constraint on permitted development rights.

Correspondence with English Nature in March 2001 confirmed that the site lies outside the boundary of the SSSI and that there was no adverse impact on the SSSI from the loss of the small amount of reed bed.

In a range of correspondence, it has been claimed that the garden area to Tideways Cottage has been extended into a reed bed and rough grassland area with part of the reed bed also being filled in. The complainants have also provided a letter from a Planning Consultant supporting their contention that a breach of planning permission has occurred. That letter contains the following paragraph:

“In my opinion, not only does this extension to Tideways garden amount to development requiring planning permission but also the filling of the reed bed requires permission since it has become, effectively, a landfill site”.

Further letter from consultant asking Committee not to be influenced by fact works already taken place nor that costs of restoring land could be high.

The first fundamental step to answer this complaint is to identify the accepted extent of the domestic curtilage to Tideways Cottage and secondly, to assess the degree of works undertaken to that garden area and whether this constitute development requiring the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. In seeking to identify the limits to the curtilage Members should note that when the change of use application to a restaurant was refused in 1983 it did refer to a plan showing ownership of the 0.38 hectare site. Subsequent to that, in 1986 the Local Planning Authority answered a letter with regards to the installation of a greenhouse on this site and in November 1996 a letter complaining about the state of the overgrown garden area to Tideways Cottage was dealt with by this department. Whether a change of use has taken place is a matter of weighing up the evidence available. I accept that ownership alone is not a conclusive issue. However, there is no physical separation within the land holding and it is clearly accepted that an element of the land was kept open and used as an amenity by occupants of the cottage. In previous correspondence from the complainant dated March 2001 it was acknowledged that Tideways Cottage had a limited sized garden when it was stated “What was a 5 metre square domestic garden seems to be in the process of being enlarged to the entire property boundary”.

Whilst certain people may seek to actively use all their curtilage by cultivating areas I do not believe that where an element is left to nature such an action should be seen as separating that piece of ground and putting it outside the curtilage.

Having assessed the evidence in the past it has been the judgement of Officers that Tideways Cottage had a large domestic curtilage and that the present owner is doing no more than recover that element of the garden which had become wild and overgrown. Having reviewed the information again I do not believe that this conclusion was unreasonable.

Turning to the second part of this question on whether or not a degree of landfilling has taken place which would require consent, I have observed that a section of the former reed bed has been filled in using rubble from building works on site with some degree of imported material. The area concerned is limited in extent and on that basis I do not consider that the degree of works undertaken are such that planning permission is required.

In the area adjacent the front boundary to Afton Thatch a driveway approximately 30m long has been established capped with shingle.

Schedule 2 Part I, Development Within the Curtilage of a Dwelling House Class F permits “the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling house of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such”. It is my view that the occupants of Tideways Cottage have not exceeded any Permitted Development Rights in the formation of this driveway.

It has been claimed that the relocated shed granted planning permission as part of the approval in March 2000 has been built higher than the dimensions shown on the approved plan. This building has been measured and it does stand 0.3m off the ground at the front. However, I am of the opinion that any deviation from the approved scheme is of a minor nature and whilst the owner can be invited to regularise the situation it is unlikely to lead to the Local Planning Authority taking any action against the property owner concerned if such an application is not forthcoming.

Within the property there is also a small greenhouse in the middle of the central raised bed feature as well as a smaller shed and a log store in the vicinity of the relocated shed close to the NE boundary. Neither of the smaller buildings require the formal consent of the LPA as they fall within the householder permitted development rights (even within the AONB locate).

The original log store exceeded these limits and in February 2001 owner was advised of this and in the following month agreed to reduce it in size so that it came under the 10 cubic metre limit. Although section of roof has been stripped of tiles, partial dismantling appears to have stopped and consequently a breach still occurs.

Concerns have been raised with regards to a series of fencing panels installed in the central part of the land behind Tideways Cottage and also the height of a fence on the boundary between Tideways and the adjoining property to the south east which is known as Afton Thatch. The fencing panels in the centre of the site are no more than two metres in height whilst the fencing sections on the boundary to Afton Thatch are 2.1 metres in height. Schedule 2 Part 2 (Minor Operations) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows fences, walls or other means of enclosure providing they do not exceed two metres above ground level. This Right exists on all land irrespective of whether or not it lies within a domestic curtilage. The fencing panels in the centre of the site are not higher than two metres and whilst the boundary fencing is just above that level, given its distance away from the adjoining property and consequently its minimal adverse impact on the amenities of that property, I do not believe the matter should be taken further.

In the centre of the site a paved area has been created incorporating raised flower beds with angled fencing panels and trellis panels. I consider this feature to be incidental to the enjoyment of the residential property.

When the extension and relocation of the shed was approved in March 2000 a landscape screening condition was imposed. Although certain details were submitted clarification is still being sought on whether or not this has been implemented. Members will be updated on this point at the meeting.

Planning Policy Guidance 1, General Policy and Principles paragraph 64 on the matter of private interests states “The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interest may coincide with the public interest in some cases…….” The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.

PPG18, Enforcing Planning Control, gives guidance in terms of the approach to be taken. This indicates the decisive issue is “whether the breach of control unacceptably affects public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest”. Paragraph 18 on Unauthorised Development by Private Householders concludes as follows: “In considering whether it is expedient to take enforcement action against development carried out in excess of the permission granted by the GDO, the LPA should have full regard to what would have been permitted if the development had been carried out in strict accordance with the relevant provisions. LPA’s should not normally take enforcement action in order to remedy only a slight variation in excess of what would have been permitted by virtue of the GDO provisions”.

1.To accept that the works within the grounds of Tideways Cottage have been carried out within its domestic curtilage and that the limited infill undertaken did not constitute development sufficient to require the submission of a formal planning application.

2.To note the variations with regards to the height of the approved shed and the northern boundary fence exceed the approved or permitted development right allowance, but that the variations concerned are of a minor nature and that the situation should be accepted as it presently exists.

3.To acknowledge that the installation of the driveway, raised flowerbeds and the central fencing screen falls within the allowances granted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

4.To advise the property owner that the extension to the domestic curtilage and the levelling of the garden area requires the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

5.To advise that the property owner that the log store exceeds the permitted development rights and that it should be reduced to no more than 10 cubic metres in size in accordance with his stated intentions within 2-months.

6. To advise the property owner that the relocated shed has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and that the boundary fence exceeds the permitted development rights and that a planning application should be made to regularise these breaches of planning control.

I consider the first fundamental question to address is whether or not the domestic curtilage of Tideways Cottage has been extended. Once this question is resolved some of the other factors automatically fall into place. From the evidence to hand which includes both the planning history and several visits to the site I consider that the current occupants have simply been clearing an element of the garden area that has formerly been wild. The fact that a section of the garden has not been laid down to lawn does not on its own render it incapable of being included within part of the domestic curtilage of a property. In terms of the levelling operations that have been undertaken I consider these to be minor in nature and indeed not uncommon to what many householders would undertake. On balance, I do not believe that the degree of infilling reaches the level that would require the consent of the Local Planning Authority. In making this judgement I am conscious of the landscape designations for the area and on the basis that the Council accepts the extent of the curtilage of the property then these works can be undertaken notwithstanding what may be considered by certain parties to be detrimental to its character.

I also accept that there are certain minor variations which exceed both the permitted height of the shed and the boundary fence. Neither structure does, I believe, harm the amenities of any adjoining property nor of the wider area and on that basis, I see no reason to take the matter further. Members could invite the property owner to submit application seeking to regularise the situation but given the circumstances outlined above I believe that this would be unnecessary.

Concerning the driveway, planter box and central fence section I also consider that these have been installed by the property owner benefiting from their Permitted Development Rights.

In assessing this case I believe the question of proportionality should also come into play. In that context, whilst the complainant has rights I believe that the occupants of Tideways Cottage also have rights and I believe the matter can best be summed up by quoting from my letter to the complainant of September 2001. “In conclusion, it appears to me that the owners of Tideways Cottage have sought to benefit from their Householder Permitted Development Rights which can be exercised without any consideration of the impact in terms of loss of views …….. Whilst they may appear to have exceeded these rights to a minor extent, I do not believe the circumstances warrant the Local Planning Authority taking the matter further. Equally, whilst I acknowledge they have exceeded the height of the shed beyond that originally approved, I do not consider that this is so significant, that the Local Authority would wish to take the matter further if no plan is submitted to regularise the situation. Whilst I appreciate this is not the reply that you would wish, I would remind you that your desire to maintain your views of the estuary ………. are no different from those rights which the adjoining property owner is seeking to exercise in terms of enjoying the benefits of their own residential property.”

Given the circumstances as outlined above I believe that Members should note this report and adopt Options 1, 2 and 3 outlined above.

1. To accept that the works within the grounds of Tideways Cottage have been carried out within its domestic curtilage and that the limited infill undertaken did not constitute development sufficient to require the submission of a formal planning application.

2. To note the variations with regards to the height of the approved shed and the northern boundary fence exceed the approved or permitted development right allowance, but that the variations concerned are of a minor nature and that the situation should be accepted as it presently exists.

(f) TCP/20443E Unauthorised caravans being stored and used for residential purposes, and two unauthorised loose boxes at Hawthorne Manor Farm, Chale Green.

To determine whether an Enforcement Notice should be served seeking the cessation of residential use of two caravans at Hawthorne Manor Farm, and possible residential use in a third caravan, and removal of the third caravan from the farm. Also seeking the removal of two loose boxes which have been constructed in the farmyard, in connection with the keeping of horses as opposed to agriculture, and which were constructed without the benefit of planning permission.

In March 1993, an Enforcement Officer called at Hawthorne Manor Farm and spoke with a frail, elderly man who said that he was living in the caravan marked A on the attached plan. He said that he had lived there since September 1992 and that someone was supposed to be living in the other caravan which is shown B on the attached plan but he hadn’t seen anybody there. The caravans marked A and B are situated virtually out of sight between two barns.

The farmer subsequently made a planning application for retention of residential use in caravan A but this was not processed. A letter was sent to him requesting further information on the application. The farmer failed to respond to this request.

In January 1995, Officers called at Hawthorne Manor Farm in connection with an application for a farm dwelling. The farmer said that once the dwelling was completed, the elderly man who was resident in the caravan would be moving into the house. This statement appeared to be genuine, and he seemed to be concerned for the elderly man. The application for residential use of the caravan was therefore held in abeyance.

The farmer was questioned about the second caravan which is shown B on the attached plan, and he said that it was used by farm workers as a canteen. The Planning Officer looked through the windows and could see no evidence of sleeping accommodation, only signs of use for cooking and eating.

In February 2000, Enforcement Officers called at Hawthorne Manor Farm after allegations that a calf rearing shed was being used to run a livery business, in breach of a condition which stated that the shed should only be used for agricultural purposes. A planning application has been made for the condition to be varied to a mixed agricultural/horsiculture use but again requests for further information and plans have not been complied with and this application has not been registered. Consideration is being given to serving a Breach of Condition Notice.

In April 2000, following a report that a further caravan had been delivered to the site, an Enforcement Officer visited the farm and found that each of the caravans marked A and B had a male occupant. The farmer said that the caravans had been there for 10 – 15 years and it was pointed out to him that he had not occupied the farm for 15 years, and from information given by him in the past, it was doubtful whether he will be able to prove 10-years continuous occupation. The farmer said that he might have told a few little lies. The Enforcement Officer saw that a third caravan had been sited to the rear of the original two and that an electric cable had been run to it, it was however, unoccupied. The farmer was asked to remove it which it subsequently was. The farmer was informed that the two residential caravans required the benefit of planning permission

but that an application will be unlikely to be supported. He was insistent that occupied caravans had been on site for in excess of 10-years. He was told that if he had evidence of 10-years continuous use he could make an application for a Lawful Use Certificate.

In June 2000, an Enforcement Officer visited the site where he noticed a building under construction in the farmyard against an existing barn. The farmer’s daughter said it was down to her father who wanted if for chickens or something. A letter was sent to the farmer on 12 June 2000 sending application forms and informing him that he was entitled to make a planning application.

On 6 July 2000 an Enforcement Officer again called at Hawthorn Manor Farm and again the farmer argued that the building under construction didn’t require consent and when asked what it was to be used for he said “farm use”.

On 23 October 2001, Officers from the Planning and Housing Department called at Hawthorne Manor Farm. The building under construction had been completed and was being used as two loose boxes in connection with the keeping of horses.

The two caravans were still being occupied by two male occupants and the Cavalier caravan which had previously been seen in the farmyard was sited on land and adjacent to the farmhouse but apparently not within its curtilage.

The Enforcement Officer wrote to the farmer in November 2001 pointing out that the two loose boxes were without the benefit of planning permission, and that if he had the evidence of 10-years continuous use he should make an application for an Established Use Certificate. He was again reminded that the Cavalier caravan should be removed from the land.

In January 2002, a Planning Contravention Notice was served on the farmer. He gave the names of the two males living in the two caravans, and the name of his daughter living in a mobile home adjacent to and ancillary to the farmhouse. He stated that the mobile home adjacent to the farmhouse would be removed when his daughter moved out. He stated that the caravans had been on site since 1989 and again that they had been in continuous residential use for more than 10-years but did not produce evidence to support this claim.

On 18 March 2002, an Enforcement Officer and Council’s Senior Solicitor, visited Hawthorne Manor Farm after giving the farmer prior warning of the visit. On their arrival the farmer was not present and could not therefore be questioned regarding the Planning Contravention Notice. There was also no sign of the occupants of the two mobile homes.

The Enforcement Officer noticed that the Cavalier caravan had been moved to a position close behind the other two caravans and is marked C on the attached plan. The curtains of this caravan were closed and there was no response when the Enforcement Officer knocked on the door. It is possible that this caravan is being used for residential accommodation. The farmer’s daughter was present and said that her father was aware of our visit and indeed she sent word to try to get him to attend, but after waiting for a while the Council Officers left the site.

1.To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use in caravans A and B and in caravan C if residential use has commenced, and the removal of caravan C from the farm. Time for compliance – six months from when the Notice takes effect.

I believe that the farmer has deliberately misled the Council leading to doubt as to whether enforcement action could be taken. The service of an Enforcement Notice would force the farmer to produce evidence to prove 10-years continuous use. I believe that it is highly likely that caravans A and B have been on this farm for in excess of 10-years and therefore their removal should not be sought. It can be proved that caravan C has recently been moved to this position and therefore the Enforcement Notice should require its removal from the farm. The provision of the two loose boxes provides more accommodation for horses within this farmyard thereby providing the opportunity to increase the size of this livery business with the potential for causing additional disturbance to neighbouring properties. The siting and residential use of caravans and mobile homes on this site is contrary to policies S4 which states that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development, G1 – development will be expected to be located within settlements, H9 – Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries, H12 – Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans, and C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The additional loose boxes are contrary to policy C24 in that they are additional to the existing farm buildings and are therefore not a reuse. As previously stated they also increase the impact on adjoining residential occupiers.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use in caravans A and B and in caravan C if residential use has commenced, and the removal of caravan C from the farm. Time for compliance – six months from when the Notice takes effect.

(g) TCP/22584C Unauthorised siting of six mobile homes at Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Ningwood

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of six mobile homes from the land at Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Ningwood.

On 15 May 2001, the Development Control Committee refused a planning application by the owner of Dodpits Farm to site six holiday caravans on his land. The owner had already moved six mobile homes on site anticipating that planning permission would be granted.

The owner of the farm appealed to the Secretary of State following receipt of the refusal but on 27 November 2001 the Planning Inspector dismissed his appeal.

The Planning Officer wrote to the landowner in December 2001 seeking his future intentions regarding the six mobile homes. The landowner replied that he hoped to have the mobile homes sold and removed by the end of March 2002.

On 5 April 2002 an Enforcement Officer called at Lower Dodpits Farm and found that the six mobile homes are still in situ. He spoke with the landowner who said that he had advertised them for sale in the County Press on six occasions since Christmas but had not been able to sell the mobile homes. He further stated that he might have a buyer for one of the homes but this was not definite. The landowner himself wants to get rid of the six mobile homes as they impede his progress around the farm.

A. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the six mobile homes from the farm. Time for compliance – three months from when the Notice takes effect.

B. Not to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the six mobile homes from the farm.

Although I am certain that the landowner has been trying to sell the mobile homes I feel that the service of an Enforcement Notice is necessary to set a timescale in place for their removal having already given him four months which have been unproductive. Siting of mobile homes in the countryside is contrary to Policy S4 which says that the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development, Policy G1 which says that development will be expected to be located within settlements, Policy H9 – Residential Development Outside the Development Boundaries, Policy H12 – Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans, and Policy C1 – Protection of Landscape Character.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the six mobile homes from the farm. Time for compliance – three months from when the Notice takes effect.

(h) Insertion of unauthorised PVCu windows and doors in Grade II listed building in a Listed Building, West Billingham Farmhouse, Berry Shute, Billingham

To consider a report and decide on what further action to take relating to both unauthorised alterations to the Grade II listed farmhouse and also to works which have not been undertaken in accordance with a previous planning approval and listed building consent.

West Billingham Farmhouse in an 18^th century farmhouse constructed of Isle of Wight Ashlar and has been extended during the 19^th century. It is located at the lower end of Berry Shute in Billingham. In addition to the farmhouse, there are a small collection of buildings mainly associated with agriculture.

On 16 April 1992 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for a single storey extension on the rear elevation of the farmhouse. The approved plan indicated the windows would be white painted softwood to match existing. On 9 September 1994 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for another single storey extension adjacent the earlier approved extension, again on the rear elevation. A condition was imposed ensuring the windows be constructed with timber framing and be painted to match the existing windows.

During a site visit on 20 October 1994 an Enforcement Officer established the fact that timber had not been used to construct the windows under the consent of 16 April 1992. Correspondence also indicates the officer had gained the impression that the intention was to fit PVCu windows to the extension approved on 9 September 1994. Later correspondence from the Local Authority on 18 November 1994 reminds the owner that the building is listed and that there is a condition requiring the use of timber framed windows to be used in the second extension. The letter concludes by asking the owner to notify the Local Authority once the windows have been installed. The Local Authority have since received no such notification.

During October 2000 the Local Authority were given reason to believe that modern style PVCu double glazed windows had been inserted in the farmhouse. The owner was contacted on 18 October 2000 and an immediate response was given by the son of the owner (owner’s representative) indicating the original windows at the front were rotten and had been replaced by exact replicas at some point during the 1990s.

On 30 October 2000 the Local Authority corresponded with the owner’s representative, suggesting that the PVCu windows should be removed to protect the character and appearance of the listed building. The owner’s representative replied indicating he did not believe that replacing windows with precisely the same dimensions as the original was a material alteration. He concluded by asking for a site meeting with a Senior Planning Officer.

On 5 October 2001, the Local Authority requested a site meeting to discuss alternative courses of action. The owner’s representative corresponded indicating he did not believe planning consent nor listed building consent were required and that he considered the matter closed.

The Conservation Officer arranged a site meeting on 31 January 2002. After this site meeting, the Conservation Officer duly corresponded with the owner’s representative suggesting there were two potential courses of action. Firstly, voluntarily replace the unauthorised windows and replace with timber; secondly, make a retrospective listed building consent application. The owner’s representative was also made aware that the Local Authority has never approved PVCu windows in a listed building and the application therefore is likely to be refused. The Conservation Officer continues by saying there are in fact nine PVCu windows on the front and one on the side of the building. In addition, he also notes four unauthorised PVCu windows and two PVCu doors on the rear of the property. During this meeting the Conservation Officer gave a verbal indication that a three month time period would be given for the owner’s representative to respond. No response has been forthcoming.

“No person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the alteration of a listed building in any manner which would affect its character of a Building of Special Architectural or Historic Interest unless the works are authorised.”

“In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, the Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of Special Architectural or Historic Interest which it possesses.”

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) (Planning and the Historic Environment) Annex C (Guidance on Alterations to Listed Buildings). This provides specific guidance on all aspects of historic buildings, such as replacement windows.

Policies B1 and B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan seek to ensure development does not adversely affect the character, appearance or setting of listed buildings.

The statutory list description indicates 19^th century casement windows (during this period they are likely to have been constructed in timber). The removal of the timber windows and replacement with PVCu windows has been justified by the owner’s representative who suggests the timber windows were rotten, that the replacement windows are replicas consisting of precisely the same dimensions and because of this should not be deemed to be a material alteration to the building. Further to this, the owner’s representative suggests that the timber windows present at the time of listing almost certainly would have been replacements of earlier sash windows and therefore exist as an example of Victorian defilement of an older building.

Due to the number and size of windows in this building, the windows are considered to be a prominent feature and therefore are fundamental to its Special Interest. In addressing the suggestion that a material alteration has not taken place, Members are asked to consider the Conservation Officer’s description of the modern PVCu windows:

“The PVCu windows are constructed with thick frame members and incorporate what is considered to be inappropriate detailing such as imitation glazing bars behind the glass. Furthermore, the rather flat and lifeless uniformity of the modern double glazing is believed to create a different effect both in terms of reflection and shadowing.”

In view of the above, the removal of the timber casement windows and replacement with PVCu double glazed windows is not considered to be a “like for like” replacement. The works are believed to have resulted in a significant material alteration, which is believed to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed building. PPG 15 reinforces this belief in Annex C paragraph C49 whereby it states:

“The insertion of factory made standard windows of all kinds, whether in timber, aluminium, galvanised steel or plastic, is almost always damaging to the character and appearance of historic buildings.”

“In particular, for reasons of strength, the thickness of frame members tends to be greater in plastic and aluminium windows than in traditional timber ones.”

In addressing the comments which suggest the timber casement windows are an example of Victorian defilement, Members are asked to consider Government guidance in PPG15 paragraph 3.13 which suggests that:

“Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the Special Interest of some buildings.”

1.The serving of an Enforcement Notice requiring removal of the PVCu windows (fourteen), including the removal of the PVCu doors (two) and replacement with timber casement windows and timber doors, designed to be specified in the Enforcement Notice. Time for compliance – twelve months.

Although I can appreciate some of the motives that encouraged the owner to undertake the replacement work and the fact that the PVCu was used in an attempt to reduce future maintenance, the Local Authority has a wider duty to the whole community under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have special regard to preserving the listed building itself or any features of special interest. In addition to this the IW UDP prescribes policies to ensure alterations do not adversely affect the listed building or its setting, and Planning Policy Guidance 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) reinforces the policy and legislation mentioned above.

The Local Authority consider the removal of the timber casement windows and replacement with modern PVCu windows to be a material alteration and this is believed to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed building.

The serving of an Enforcement Notice requiring removal of the PVCu windows (fourteen), including the removal of the PVCu doors (two) and replacement with timber casement windows and timber doors, designed to be specified in the Enforcement Notice. Time for compliance – twelve months.

Note to Members: Time compliance is normally 6 months, but given the extent of works required, a period of 12 months for compliance is considered to be more reasonable.

Local Member objects on grounds of unnecessary proliferation on narrow plot, use of shed, siting and visible from coastal footpath, plot being congested with outbuildings, retrospective nature of application.

AONB officer considers there to be no AONB issues and comments proposed development is screened by trees and shrubs and the dark coloured timber cladding will reduce its visibility further. There are other sheds of similar design within the surrounding area and the site is not particularly visible from any rights of way.

One letter of objection on grounds of impact on AONB, close to development envelope boundary, precedent, potential noise nuisance, poor design, too large/over development.

Application has been generated by enforcement investigation and relates to the retention of shed/workshop in domestic curtilage of property sited within AONB. This site has a large curtilage with several trees in the back garden. There is an existing concrete outbuilding and shed close to the property and the site has open fields to the rear. The workshop measures a maximum of 5.90 by 5.40 metres, the roof being of a maximum 2.20 metres in height. Materials are shown to be plywood covered in feather board of mahogany colour, roofing felt in dark grey and double glazed windows. The applicant has confirmed the workshop is to be used for hobbies/model making, DIY for home improvements and for garden storage.

Determining factors in considering application are size, appearance and use of building, effect on adjoining neighbours and amenity of area. In particular, effect on landscape given the site's designation as AONB. Policy C1 - Protection of Landscape Character states that planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area.

Policy D1 - Standards of Design is relevant, particularly to the following sub-paragraphs:

(a) Respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area.

(d) Do not constitute overdevelopment leading to a cramped appearance and obtrusiveness, but include appropriate space in between the properties.

(h) Do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

(l) Do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

(j) Retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area.

In considering objections relating to the impact on the AONB, the AONB Officer has confirmed there are no AONB issues and I am of the view that a refusal regarding impact on AONB would not be sustained.

With regard to effect on neighbouring properties, I have considered siting in relation to neighbouring property to east which has lounge at rear on first floor with balcony looking out across back gardens, but am of the opinion that the proposed workshop is a significant distance away and does not unduly detract from the amenities of neighbouring properties.

With regard to proposed use of building, condition can be imposed to ensure workshop used ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling and for no commercial or industrial purpose.

In conclusion, this is a residential area with other outbuildings in gardens in the locality as would be expected. As constructed at present, the appearance is not acceptable, but this can be overcome by condition. I therefore consider objections are not sustainable and the proposal is not detrimental to the site and amenities of the surrounding area and recommend accordingly.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

This application has been submitted under the auspices of Circular 18/84 - Crown Land and Crown Development and is before this Committee for comment.

The Circular contains advice relating to notification of Local Planning Authority's views. The normal time period within which those views should be given is eight weeks. However, under paragraph 22 the following advice applies:

"In rare cases developing departments may need to ask for comments in a shorter period than eight weeks. If so, they will mark the notice 'special urgency'. The publicity arrangements will not apply to these cases and there will be a time limit for comment of fourteen days from the date of receipt."

This particular application has been submitted under "special urgency" notice and therefore the application will not be subject to any publicity with the expiry date in this case being 25 April 2002. Because of this situation, it was considered important that the Committee is given the opportunity to comment on this proposal given that the opportunity occurs whilst still being within the fourteen day period.

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment, as there are no highway implications.

Members are advised that the urgent need for this prisoner living accommodation is the unexpected and unprecedented rise in the prison population since Christmas, with there being a danger that there will be insufficient accommodation to cope with this increase. Members will be aware that this has been well publicised nationally.

Comments are sought on a proposal to provide additional living accommodation within the secure perimeter at Albany Prison. The new living unit will be two storeys high with a single storey ancillary building attached and provide 40 place accommodation.

In detail, the proposal indicates a staggered block having an approximate length of in excess of 50 metres by an approximate width of 10 metres with just over half the block being two storeys in height with the remainder being single storey. The block is to be located in close proximity to the eastern secure perimeter wall. Building would be timber frame clad and with pitched roof with all colours to be as far as possible matching with the existing building.

This proposal being behind the perimeter wall will have no external visual impact whatever and therefore this would not be in an issue on which comment would be required. There would be some economic benefit in the form of some modest additional employment. Proposal may result in some additional traffic being generated. However, the past experience suggests that most visitors to Prisons use public transport, and Highways Engineer has no comment.

In view of the modest nature of this proposal and its location, I am of the view that the Council should raise no objection to this proposal.

The only other issue which Members may consider to be pertinent to the proposal relates to the issues which have been raised following the consideration of the various residential developments on the Prison Estate which Members will be aware of. Members are reminded that the three Prison Estates have been the subject of a total of eleven applications for residential development on individual sites, two of which have been refused, seven of which have been approved and two of which remain outstanding awaiting ecology reports. In respect of the approvals, Members will be aware that they were the subject of extensive conditions, a number of which related to and acknowledged the drainage problems in the area and the requirement for fully calculated drainage scheme both surface water and foul. When this is applied to this current proposal, obviously the block although reasonably modest will generate additional foul drainage and I suggest that this is an issue which should be brought to the attention of the Home Office.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the view that the proposal will have no visual or environmental impact, being located within the perimeter walls of Albany Prison and therefore I recommend that the Council raise no objection to the proposal. I also recommend the Home Office be advised of the need to investigate the availability of foul drainage of a suitable capacity to accept the additional drainage and that in this regard they consult with the Environment Agency and Southern Water.

Recommendation - That whilst no objection be raised to the proposal, the Home Office be advised that the issue of foul drainage be investigated with a view to establishing available capacity to service the proposal and that consultations with the Environment Agency and Southern Water be carried out.