REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 24 MAY 2002

Representations

Calbourne Parish Council is in favour of granting consent. It is considered the proposed house would not impinge on landscape and most importantly proposal is opportunity for local person to return to village with young family, thereby keeping continuity in the community. Also important that children should grow up in the village which is currently populated almost entirely by adults.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Assistant expresses concern that proposal will have urbanising effect as it involves development of a greenfield site which is very visible from both Lynch Lane and the B3401 as well as from adjacent footpaths, bridle way and playing field. She expresses concern that development of this site may set precedent for further residential development in this area which would put pressure on rural services. In particular, she considers that the re-profiling work would be very damaging to the shape of the landscape, particularly as around the Calbourne area there are many soft undulating slopes. She comments that there are redundant buildings at the other end of the village which could be refurbished before it is necessary to increase the footprint of the area by building more. She considers that proposal is contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the Unitary Development Plan. However, she requests that, should Members be minded to approve application, consent should be subject to condition that site is well screened.

One letter received from local resident objecting on behalf of himself and his neighbour to proposal on grounds that development of site would be harmful to character of the area. He has attempted to buy the land to keep it free from development but has been unsuccessful.

Evaluation

Application relates to rectangular area of land located on east side of Lynch Lane approximately 40 metres south of its junction with Sun Hill and Elm Lane. Site slopes quite steeply towards road and is enclosed on east, south and west boundaries by hedgerows.

Outline planning permission is sought for bungalow and garage with all detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval. Application was accompanied by illustrative plans showing three-bedroom bungalow constructed on level plateau created by excavating into slope of site with garage in front of dwelling at lower level, again cut into slope. Site and dwelling are shown to be of size compatible with adjacent property to south, a bungalow, constructed following the grant of planning permission in 1960.

Application was also accompanied by three letters from local residents supporting proposal for reasons which can be summarised as follows:

Proposed dwelling would be unobtrusive.

Important to encourage young people to settle in village, especially those who grew up in area, in order to maintain village life.

Concern is expressed about number of dwellings in village being used as holiday homes.

Difficult for young people to buy a house in village due to high property prices.

Petition containing twenty-five signatures of local residents in support of proposal was also submitted with application. Heading of petition includes the following:

"I was born on the Island in 1970 and lived in Calbourne with my parents, my father being the village constable from 1970 - 1983, when we moved to Brighstone. Since 1992 I have lived in Newport, but would now like to return to Calbourne to start family life, as my parents did."

The petition signatories have also offered comments on the proposal including comments such as "we need you back into the village to help it survive. This couple have so much to add to this lovely village, we need more of this to happen." "I am in favour of this proposal but would not like to see an opening of the flood gates". "As a member of Calbourne Recreation Centre I think we are in urgent need of young people staying or returning to the village. We have a lovely village hall which is used for bingo, dancing and other social events. We also have a brilliant playing field for cricket, football, a tennis court and play area. All these thinks need to be supported otherwise they cease to exist. So I am in favour of Mark's proposal."

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle, whether development of site for residential purposes would detract from character and amenities of locality, and whether local support carries sufficient weight to overcome any policy objections.

PPG1 sets out general policy and principles for Planning Authorities and that guidance may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. The guidance confirms that the objectives of the plan led system are to ensure rational and consistent decisions, to achieve greater certainty, to secure public involvement in shaping planning policies, facilitating quicker planning decisions and reducing the number of misconceived planning applications and appeals.

Paragraph 38 is of particular relevance to the current proposal and reads as follows:

"Unless otherwise specified, a planning permission runs with the land and it is seldom desirable to provide for any other arrangement. Exceptionally, however, the personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, or the difficulties of business which are of value to the character of the local community, may be material to the consideration of a planning application. In such circumstances, a permission may be made subject to a condition that it is personal to the applicant. Such arguments will seldom outweigh the more general planning considerations. If the proposed development entails works of a permanent nature, they will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have ceased to be material."

PPG7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) indicates the following at paragraph 3.20:

"The pattern of new development should be determined through the Development Plan process and should be well related in style and location to existing development. Expansion of villages and towns should avoid creating ribbon development or a fragmented pattern of development."

The PPG also indicates at para 3.22 that in an increasing number of rural areas there are pressures on the limited housing stock which can result in a serious shortage of affordable housing for those with modest incomes who already live and work in the area. Advice is given on this issue including the "exceptions policy" in rural areas, which should include "arrangements for ensuring that the benefits are passed to successive occupants."

Village of Calbourne does not have development boundary and is therefore subject to policies which seek to protect the countryside from further development. Site is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

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

G4 -General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

The policy considerations in the determination of this application are paramount. It is clear from PPG advice that personal circumstances will rarely outweigh other planning considerations, because, where permanent works are entailed (as the building of a bungalow would be in this case) the property will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have ceased to be material. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in the application, and no realistic mechanism which I can suggest, which would ensure that the benefits of the construction of the bungalow for the benefit of one person wishing to live in the village, can be passed on to successive occupants. This is a requirement of PPG7 and the Council's own UDP Policy H15 which allows the provision of locally affordable housing outside village development envelopes, as a rural exception. In my view, this proposal for a single detached bungalow cannot be considered as making any contribution to affordable local housing. Any subsequent sale will be at full open market value.

Planning permission for two dwellings on larger area of land, including the current application site, was refused in December 1977 on grounds that proposal was contrary to policy, and in particular, was outside the village of Calbourne and would detract from the rural character of the area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Subsequent appeal to Department of the Environment was dismissed.

Having regard to location of site, outside any settlement defined by the development envelopes on the Unitary Development Plan, I consider that its development for residential purposes is unacceptable in principle and, in this instance, do not consider that proposal falls into any of the categories of development which under policy H9 may exceptionally be permitted in such areas. If this application were treated as an exception, on personal grounds, to policies restricting development in the countryside and outside development envelopes, I can foresee considerable difficulties in maintaining those restrictive development policies which are aimed at preventing the spread of buildings in the countryside. This is a justification for development which, I am sure is likely to be put forward again to support development either in villages with no development envelope, or on sites adjoining, but outside development envelopes, and to approve this proposal would make it significantly more difficult to resist similar approaches in the future. The proliferation of such approvals would, in my opinion, lead to a significant erosion in the character of the countryside through the introduction of new dwellings which would otherwise be considered unacceptable.

The question of personal circumstances has been addressed in two recent appeal decisions, following refusals of planning permission by the Isle of Wight Council. The first related to land between "Winnats" and "Wish House", Hunnyhill at Brighstone, where an application for a bungalow in the grounds of an adjoining property outside the development envelope for Brighstone was refused as, in the opinion of the Inspector, it did not constitute acceptable infill and although the applicant had been ill for some time and the prognosis for his condition was not good, the Inspector's view was that his circumstances were not sufficient to go against the clear policy framework. This view also follows the clear planning principle that "rewarding locals" is not an acceptable basis for approving development which does not comply with national or local policies.

An application for a summer house, in the area of one of the chalets at Brambles Chine, required in order to ameliorate the applicant's health problems was not permitted on appeal as the Inspector, whilst sympathising with the appellant's problems did not consider that they would outweigh the planning objections. He also acknowledged that although dismissing the appeal on its own merits, similar development elsewhere on the estate would cause further visual harm.

Whilst applicant's agent advises that proposal would enable a person brought up in the village to return to the area and local residents have indicated in letters of support that this is difficult due to property prices, I am not satisfied that this factor outweighs the general policy considerations and the presumption against further development in the countryside.

Application has not been submitted on the basis that it is to provide an affordable housing unit in the countryside and no evidence is included to demonstrate that there is such a need. In any event, I do not consider that the proposal is of a type, involving the construction of a single detached dwelling which would meet the needs of the policy requirements in respect of specific locally affordable housing schemes. Therefore, in this instance, I consider there is a fundamental policy objection to the current proposal, and in absence of any overriding justification, is the type of development which could be repeated all too often.

Dwelling would occupy prominent corner site and would be elevated above level of road. Development of site would necessitate quite significant elevations into slope of site. Therefore, I consider that development will have significant adverse impact in the landscape, which is designated as of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In terms of the effect of the proposal on the character of the area, I would refer Members to the comments of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Assistant, who stresses the visibility of this site from Lynch Lane, the B3401 and from adjacent footpaths, bridleway and playing field. Approval of a traditional bungalow design, of significant size and requiring significant excavation of the natural landform, would be contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the UDP.

Notwithstanding other policy issues, I believe this is a significant issue which needs to be taken into account in the determination of the application. The Authority is under a statutory duty to protect the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the extension of the "ribbon" of development on the east side of Lynch Lane, far from being acceptable, would in my view and that of the Inspector at the previous appeal, seriously prejudice the character of the designated AONB and the nature of the village in this location.

Whilst recognising the views of the Parish Council and the feeling expressed in the Representations in support, to approve this application would be contrary to policy and set a dangerous precedent for similar developments which would have the potential significantly to alter the character of the countryside.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that there is a fundamental policy objection to the development of the site for residential purposes and that the proposal would detract from the rural character of the area. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons: